CHAMBER  OF  COMMERCE  OF 
THE  UNITED  STATES 


MAJORITY  REPORT 

OF 

SPECIAL  COMMITTEE 
ON  EDUCATION 

PARTICIPATION  OF 
THE  FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT 
IN  EDUCATION 


Frank  J.  Loesch,  Chicago,  III. 

John  G.  Lonsdale,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Henry  S.  Pritchett,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

Henry  D.  Sharpe,  Providence,  R.  I. 

James  J.  Storrow,  Boston,  Mass.,  Chairman 

% 

i£ 

n 


NOVEMBER  20,  1922 


MAJORITY  REPORT 

OF 


SPECIAL  COMMITTEE 
ON  EDUCATION 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/majorityreportof00cham_0 


CHAMBER  OF  COMMERCE  OF 
THE  UNITED  STATES 


MAJORITY  REPORT 

OF 

SPECIAL  COMMITTEE 
ON  EDUCATION 

PARTICIPATION  OF 
THE  FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT 
IN  EDUCATION 


Frank  J.  Loesch,  Chicago,  111. 

John  G.  Lonsdale,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Henry  S.  Pritchett,  New  York,  N.  Y. 
Henry  D.  Sharpe,  Providence,  R.  I. 

James  J.  Storrow,  Boston,  Mass.,  Chairman 


NOVEMBER  20,  1922 


PARTICIPATION  OF  THE  FEDERAL 
GOVERNMENT  IN  EDUCATION 


RESOLUTION  OF 
BOARD  OF  DIRECTORS 

This  Committee  was  created  pursuant  to  the  follow- 
ing resolution  of  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  Chamber 
of  Commerce  of  the  United  States: 

“The  resolution  adopted  by  the  Civic  Development 
Department  Committee  recommending  that  the  Board 
submit  to  a referendum  the  subject  of  education,  the 
participation  of  the  Federal  Government  in  education 
work,  and  the  correlation  of  the  education  work  of  the 
Federal  Government  to  other  activities  of  the  Federal 
Government  was  considered,  and  it  was  voted  that  the 
President  be  authorized  to  appoint  a Special  Committee 
on  Education  to  consider  the  questions  involved  and 
report  to  the  Board.” 


PARTICIPATION  OF 
THE  FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT 
IN  EDUCATION 


GENERAL  CONSIDERATIONS 

The  Questions  Before  Us 

By  far  the  most  important  subject  submitted  to  this 
committee  is  the  question  of  Federal  participation  in 
education. 

Shall  the  states  continue  to  maintain  and  be  respon- 
sible for  the  public  schools  of  the  country? 

Shall  the  National  Government  take  over  the  support 
and  control  of  the  schools? 

Shall  there  be  a divided  support  and  control,  partly 
vested  in  the  National  Government  and  partly  vested 
in  the  states? 

These  questions  are  not  academic.  They  are  of  the 
utmost  practical  importance  and  they  are  now  before  the 
American  people  for  decision. 

For  a decade,  and  with  especial  vehemence  since  the 
war,  a nation-wide  propaganda  has  been  carried  on 
looking  toward  the  gradual  transfer  of  responsibility 
for  the  support  and  control  of  our  public  schools  from 
the  state,  and  local  unit  within  the  state,  to  the  Federal 
Government  at  Washington. 

If  we  travel  this  road  we  shall  end  with  a great  bu- 
reaucratic machine  at  Washington  having  its  Secretary 
of  Education  in  the  Cabinet,  its  Assistant  Secretaries 
of  Education,  and  a horde  of  bureau  chiefs  and  clerks 
and  three-quarters  of  a million  of  Federal  employees 
teaching  in  the  schools  and  bossed  by  several  thousand 
field  inspectors,  supervisors,  and  other  petty  traveling 
officials. 

[3] 


General  Considerations 


Federal  Board  for  Vocational  Education 

This  nation-wide  propaganda  succeeded  in  1917  in 
securing  the  passage  of  its  first  bill  and  created  at  Wash- 
ington a special  Federal  Board  to  control  vocational 
education.  This  National  Vocational  Board  is  now 
operating  from  Washington,  disbursing  Federal  money, 
laying  down  regulations,  controlling,  inspecting,  and 
dictating  the  manner  in  which  vocational  education 
shall  be  carried  on  by  the  states,  the  cities  and  towns, 
and  other  local  educational  units. 

Sterling-Towner  Bill 

Now  comes  the  Sterling-Towner  Bill,  prepared  by 
collaboration  between  representatives  of  the  National 
Education  Association,  and  representatives  of  the  Amer- 
ican Federation  of  Teachers,  composed  of  those  teachers 
who  have  joined  the  American  Federation  of  Labor. 
This  bill  was  introduced  at  the  request  of  the  National 
Education  Association  and  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor,  hearings  were  held  and  it  was  favorably 
reported  in  the  last  Congress  by  the  House  and  Senate 
Committees  on  Education,  but  failed  to  come  up  for 
action  before  the  end  of  the  session.  It  has  again  been 
introduced  during  the  present  Congress  and  is  now  in 
the  hands  of  the  Senate  and  House  Committees. 

Sterling-Towner  Bill  Most  Radical  Step 
Towards  Federalizing  Schools 

This  Sterling-Towner  Bill,  which  constitutes  a long 
and  radical  second  step  towards  federalizing  the  schools 
of  the  country,  calls  for  the  appropriation  of  the  round 
sum  of  one  hundred  million  dollars,  of  which  $7,500,000 
is  to  be  expended  for  teaching  illiterates,  $7,500,000  for 
Americanization  work  (chiefly  teaching  illiterates  be- 
yond school  age  English  and  to  read  and  write),  $20,- 
000,000  for  physical  training,  $15,000,000  for  training 

[4] 


General  Considerations 


teachers,  and  $50,000,000  to  raise  the  pay  of  teachers 
throughout  the  country.* 

Framers  of  Constitution  Intended  to  Leave 
Education  in  Hands  of  States 

The  Constitution  does  not  mention  education,  and 
nowhere  gives  the  Federal  Government  authority  to 
direct  or  control  education.  As  this  power  was  not 
reserved  by  the  Constitution  to  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment, it  is  clear  that  the  framers  of  the  Constitution 
deliberately  intended  to  vest  in  the  states  the  power  to 
establish,  maintain,  conduct,  and  control  education. 
This  does  not  mean  that  the  framers  of  this  Federal 
democracy  failed  to  realize  the  importance  of  edu- 
cation, but  that  like  many  other  activities  vital  to  the 
welfare  of  our  people  they  believed  education  could  be 
carried  on  with  better  regard  to  the  interests  and  wishes 
of  the  people,  with  better  adaptation  to  local  needs, 
and  with  greater  efficiency  and  more  economy  if  left 
to  the  states  than  if  it  should  be  federalized  and  so 
controlled  and  conducted  by  Federal  officers  located  at 
the  National  Capital. 

Dangers  of  Federal  Control 

Great  is  the  danger  of  handing  the  power  of  controlling 
the  ideas  and  ideals  of  the  growing  generation  to  a 
group  of  bureaucrats  located  far  away  at  the  seat  of 
government. 

They  may  willfully  do  great  damage.  They  may 
unwittingly  sow  seeds  on  a nation-wide  scale  which  will 

* The  language  of  the  bill  is  $50,000,000  “to  equalize  educational  op- 
portunity.” These  words  of  the  bill  are  certainly  vague,  but  the  under- 
standing among  the  proponents  seems  to  be  that  this  $50,000,000  is  to  be 
used  to  raise  the  pay  of  teachers. 

“The  appropriation  for  the  equalization  of  educational  opportunities 
will  contribute  $50,000,000  annually  to  this  end,  and  while  the  same  is 
relatively  small  (adding  less  than  $100  to  the  salary  of  each  teacher),  it 
will  operate  upon  the  basis  of  a public  sentiment  already  alive  to  the 
imperative  need  of  raising  teachers’  salaries.”  (Keith  and  Bagley,  “The 
Nation  and  the  Schools,”  p.  285.) 


General  Considerations 


fructify  only  after  many  quiet  years  of  germination  so 
that  the  noxious  weeds  can  perhaps  be  eradicated  only 
by  the  slow  growth  of  public  reaction  after  grievous 
injury  to  our  body  politic. 

Germany  to  her  ruin  and  sorrow  has  reaped  her  har- 
vest from  seeds  quietly  sown  in  her  schools  for  many 
years  by  the  Berlin  bureaucracy.  The  world’s  history 
is  strewn  with  the  wreck  of  governments  whose  dis- 
integration began  when  the  people  saw  the  local  control 
of  their  dearest  concerns  taken  away  and  concentrated 
in  the  hands  of  a bureaucracy  at  the  seat  of  empire. 
The  creators  of  our  Federal  Government  clearly  foresaw 
and  wisely  undertook  to  protect  us  from  the  inefficiency 
and  the  dangers  of  over-centralization. 

Control  of  Schools  for  the  People  Should 
Remain  Near  the  People 

The  genius  of  our  people  should  and  must  control  our 
schools.  There  is  nowhere  else  to  place  this  trust.  But 
if  our  people  are  to  control  our  schools  and  to  cause 
them  to  be  sensitive  to  their  ideals,  to  their  varying 
needs  from  year  to  year  and  from  locality  to  locality, 
those  in  charge  must  be  near  them,  accessible  to  them, 
and  responsive  to  them.  A vote  once  in  two  or  six 
years  for  a member  of  Congress  or  a Senator  who  is  to 
live  at  the  seat  of  government  far  from  home,  and  who 
must  be  elected  to  attend  to  a hundred  other  things  and 
can  therefore  rarely  be  elected  on  an  educational  issue, 
coupled  with  the  rigidity  which  would  almost  certainly 
be  attained  by  the  managing  bureaucracy  at  Washing- 
ton, would  make  our  school  system  about  as  sensitive 
and  responsive  to  the  average  man  as  a ton  of  pig  iron 
to  a tack  hammer. 

Constant  Practice  in  Local  Self- 
Government  Vital 

Moreover,  if  our  government  is  to  survive,  if  these 
100,000,000  people,  soon  to  become  200,000,000  people, 

[6] 


General  Considerations 


made  up  of  racial  stocks  from  many  countries,  embody- 
ing many  varying  degrees  and  forms  of  civilization, 
and  of  governing  knowledge  or  rather  lack  of  knowledge 
of  self-government,  are  to  succeed  in  maintaining  and 
carrying  on  this  great  Federal  democracy,  it  will  only 
be  by  the  constant  practice  of  local  self-government 
in  things  which  vitally  concern  them.  Our  people 
should  have  constant  practice  in  critical  local  affairs, 
in  affairs  which  are  not  matters  of  comparative  in- 
difference but  of  such  vital  consequence  that  the  people 
of  the  community  will  be  hurt,  and  seriously  hurt,  if 
they  are  not  conducted  properly.  These  alone  will 
teach  each  succeeding  generation  and  the  millions  of 
less  experienced  people  arriving  from  foreign  shores 
what  good  government  is,  what  bad  government  is,  and 
how  to  secure  the  former. 

Self  Help  Builds  Character  and  Citizenship 

The  doctrine  of  self  help,  the  idea  that  the  things  we 
get  for  ourselves  are  the  best  tilings  we  possess,  that 
sturdily  striving  to  care  for  ourselves  builds  character 
and  citizenship,  seems  recently  to  have  evaporated 
from  the  minds  of  many.  They  seem  to  think  that 
each  local  group  of  American  citizens  should  stand 
around  like  a Greek  chorus  waiting  for  the  gods  at 
Washington  to  make  the  next  event  happen. 

Federal  Control  of  Public  Education  Inevitable 
Under  Sterling-Towner  Bill 

Many  of  those  who  advocate  the  Sterling-Towner 
Bill  urge  that  Federal  control  or  interference  with  our 
public  school  system  will  not  result  from  the  passage 
of  the  bill. 

This  Sterling-Towner  Bill  did  not  spring  up  over- 
night, and  it  is  perhaps  significant  that  as  originally 
framed  with  great  deliberation  by  its  present  sponsors 

[7] 


General  Considerations 


and  pushers,  it  directly  contemplated  a high  degree  of 
Federal  control  just  as  is  now  being  actually  exercised 
by  the  Federal  Board  of  Vocational  Training  in  dis- 
tributing its  Federal  money. 

There  have  now  been  inserted  in  the  bill,  however* 
specific  words  stating  in  effect  that  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment shall  not  interfere  or  endeavor  to  control  the  ex- 
penditure of  the  money  which  it  is  to  turn  over  to  the 
states. 

Apart  from  the  fundamentally  unsound  policy  of 
having  A levy  the  taxes,  collect  the  funds,  and  then 
wash  his  hands  of  all  responsibility  for  the  expenditure 
of  the  funds  by  B , it  only  takes,  we  think,  a moderate 
experience  in  affairs  to  realize  that  people  are  bound  to 
be  sensitive  to  the  views  of  the  dispenser  of  their  annual 
largesses  even  though  his  wishes  are  not  embodied  in 
words  of  command  but  are  conveyed  in  terms  of  sug- 
gestion and  recommendation. 

But  right  at  the  outset  and  on  the  face  of  the  bill,  its 
proponents  are  trying  to  sit  on  both  sides  of  the  fence 
at  the  same  time,  as  another  part  of  the  bill  sets  up 
certain  standards  which  the  states  must  meet  and 
maintain  if  they  are  to  receive  Federal  money  and  the 
new  Cabinet  officer,  the  Secretary  of  Education  created 
by  the  bill,  is  given  authority  to  withhold  the  money 
from  any  state  which  fails  to  meet  the  standards. 

But  really  common  sense  is  sufficient  without  argu- 
ment to  tell  us  that  if  the  six  hundred  thousand  teachers 
of  this  country  find  themselves  on  the  Federal  payroll, 
they  are  going  in  the  long  run  to  be  subject  at  least  to 
a dual  influence  and  a dual  control.  Besides,  if  the 
Sterling-Towner  Bill  passes  and  six  hundred  thousand 
teachers  begin  looking  to  the  Federal  Government  for 
fifty  million  dollars  of  their  pay,  why  in  their  opinion 
should  the  Government  stop  at  a fifty  million  bonus? 
The  argument  for  a second  fifty  million  will  be  almost 
exactly  as  good  as  for  the  first  and  the  desire  of  the  bene- 

[8] 


General  Considerations 


ficiaries  probably  not  a whit  less.  Certainly  the  new 
Secretary  of  Education  who  will  be  in  contact  with  the 
President  as  the  head  of  one  of  the  great  political  parties 
and  with  his  fellow  Cabinet  officers  and  other  political 
leaders  and  with  the  appropriation  committees  of  Con- 
gress, will  not  need  to  speak  much  above  a whisper  to 
have  his  perhaps  quite  recently  acquired  views  as  the 
holder  of  a quite  recently  acquired  office  sway  the  whole 
course  of  public  school  education.  Moreover  the  pro- 
ponents of  the  Sterling-Towner  Bill  are,  in  our  judg- 
ment, handing  the  teachers  of  the  country  poisoned 
fruit  because  for  each  dollar  received  from  the  Federal 
Government  five  dollars  will  be  held  back  by  the  states 
and  local  authorities  waiting  for  Uncle  Sam  to  make 
the  next  move. 

National  Education  Association 

We  differ  in  this  report  from  views  officially  formu- 
lated by  the  National  Education  Association  and  set 
forth  by  its  official  representatives  at  the  hearing  on  the 
Sterling-Towner  Bill.  We  do  so  with  entire  respect. 
The  National  Education  Association  is  performing  great 
public  service  in  crystallizing  and  making  known  to 
us  the  views  of  those  engaged  in  public  education. 
In  its  arguments  urging  Federal  pay  for  teachers  it  is 
helping  the  American  people  to  realize  the  sound  public 
policy  of  more  generous  compensation  for  teachers  in 
the  public  schools.  In  stressing  the  dangers  of  illiteracy, 
of  the  need  of  Americanization  and  making  known  to 
the  American  people  the  shortcomings  of  their  school 
systems,  they  are  helping  to  accelerate  the  constant 
forward  march  of  our  public  schools. 

Quick  Remedies  Not  Always  the  Best 

We  admire  the  impatience  of  the  teaching  profession 
with  the  defects  of  our  public  schools  and  we  sympa- 
thize with  their  viewpoint  that  to  get  a quick  remedy 

[9] 


General  Considerations 


for  some  of  these  defects  they  desire  to  call  the  National 
Government  to  their  aid. 

Bryce,  a thoroughly  sympathetic  as  well  as  perhaps 
the  most  profound  student  of  Democracy  of  our  genera- 
tion, well  describes  this  impatience: 

“Reformers,  impatient  with  the  slackness  and 
parsimony  common  among  local  authorities,  have, 
however,  been  everywhere  advocating  State  (i.  e . 
National)  intervention,  insisting  that  the  reluctance 
of  the  local  citizen  to  spend  freely  makes  it  necessary 
to  invoke  the  central  government,  both  to  supervise 
schools  and  to  grant  the  money  from  the  treasury 
for  the  salaries  of  teachers  and  various  educational 
appliances.  Here,  as  is  often  the  case,  the  choice  is 
between  more  rapid  progress  on  the  one  hand,  and 
the  greater  solidity  and  hold  upon  the  average 
citizen’s  mind  which  institutions  draw  from  being 
entrusted  to  popular  management.  (Bryce,  “ Mod- 
ern Democracies,”  p.  436.) 

Danger  of  Hasty  Generalization 

Hasty,  ill-considered  generalization  based  upon  in- 
complete assembly  of  the  facts  and  superficial  study  of 
the  facts  is  the  plague  of  the  world. 

We  shall  endeavor  now  to  marshal  what  seem  to  us 
to  be  the  more  material  facts  bearing  on  this  question 
and  to  consider  them  in  some  detail.  He  who  wishes  to 
arrive  at  a sound  conclusion  on  this  complex  subject 
must  examine  many  facts.  There  is  no  short  cut  to  a 
sound  opinion. 


HAS  OUR  PRESENT  SYSTEM  OF 
EDUCATION  BROKEN  DOWN? 

Proposals  for  participation  of  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment in  the  support  and  control  of  public  education 
are  based  upon  two  premises : 

First:  That  under  the  present  method  of  support 

and  control  by  states  and  communities  our 
system  of  education  has  broken  down;  and 

Second:  That  some  of  the  states  are  too  poor  to  pro- 
vide a fair  standard  of  public  education  for 
their  people. 

These  are  serious  charges  and  deserve  serious  considera- 
tion. We  shall  therefore  consider  these  questions  in  turn. 

Throughout  the  history  of  our  national  life  the  public 
school  system  has  been  entirely  under  state  and  local 
government  and  has  been  dependent  almost  exclusively  on 
state  and  local  support.  Under  these  conditions  it  has 
developed  with  constantly  increasing  effectiveness  into  a 
system  which,  in  spite  of  all  its  defects,  represents  an 
achievement  in  education  unparalleled  in  any  other 
country. 

It  is  the  tendency  of  over-zealous  proponents  of 
change  in  any  field  of  human  endeavor  to  overlook 
substantial  merits  and  to  exaggerate  defects.  Advo- 
cates of  a revolution  in  our  methods  of  support  and 
control  of  public  education  have  so  directed  attention 
to  defects  in  our  present  system  that  we  are  in  danger 
of  overlooking  its  merits.  It  is  necessary,  therefore, 
to  review  briefly  the  great  development  of  public  edu- 
cation within  the  past  fifty  years. 

Progress  in  Education  Under  State  and 
Community  Control 
increase  in  scholars 

The  following  table  shows  the  growth  in  scholars 
under  state  support  and  control  since  1870: 


Has  Our  Present  System  Broken  Down? 


Year 

Pupils  Enrolled 

Average  Daily 
Attendance 

1870 

6,871,522 

4,077,347 

1880 

9,867,505 

6,144,143 

1890 

12,722,581 

8,153,635 

1900 

15,503,110 

10,632,772 

1910 

17,813,852 

12,827,307 

1918 

20,853,516 

15,548,914 

(U.  S.  Bureau  of  Education,  Bulletin  11, 

1920,  p.  4.) 

The  increase  in  scholars  attending  our  public  high 
schools  also  has  been  amazing. 


Year 

Pupils  Enrolled 
in  Public  High  Schools 

1870 

80,227 

1880 

110,277 

1890 

202,963 

1900 

519,251 

1910 

915,061 

1918 

1,645,171 

S.  Bureau  of  Education,  Bulletin  11,  1920, 

IMPROVEMENT  IN  DAILY  ATTENDANCE 

In  1920  the  U.  S.  Commissioner  of  Education  de- 
scribed the  progress  made  as  follows: 

“No  field  in  education,  with  the  possible  exception 
of  school  revenues,  has  in  recent  years  been  more 
prolific  of  progress  as  regards  legislative  provisions 
than  has  compulsory  school  attendance. 

“Within  the  past  decade  the  seven  states  which 
had  previously  enacted  no  laws  on  the  subject  all 
enacted  initial  requirements,  and  they  and  various 
other  states  have  by  this  time  made  their  laws 
stronger  and  extended  their  application.”  (U.  S. 
Commissioner  of  Education,  Annual  Report,  1920, 
p.  77.) 


Has  Our  Present  System  Broken  Down? 


INCREASE  IN 

ATTENDANCE  IN  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS 

Per  Cent  of  Children 

Year 

Enrolled  Attending  Each  Day 

1870 

59.3 

1880 

62.3 

1890 

64.1 

1900 

68.6 

1910 

72.1 

1918 

74.6 

(U.  S.  Bureau  of  Education,  Bulletin  11,  1920,  p.  5.) 


INCREASE  IN  LENGTH  OF  SCHOOL  YEAR 


There  has  been  a steady  increase  in  the  length  of  the 
school  year. 


Year 

Average  Number  of  Days 

Schools  were  in  Session 

1870 

132.2 

1880 

130.3 

1890 

134.7  ‘ 1 

1900 

144.3 

1910 

157.5 

1918 

160.7 

(U.  S.  Bureau  of  Education,  Bulletin  11,  1920,  p.  5.) 

INCREASE  IN  NUMBER  OF  YEARS  OF  ATTENDANCE 

There  has  been 

, also,  a steady  increase  in  the  average 

number  of  years 

children  remain  in  school. 

Year 

Average  Number  of  Years  of 

200  Days  Children  Remain  at  School 

1870 

2.91 

1880 

3.45 

1890 

3.85 

1900 

4.67 

1910 

5.40 

1914 

5.64 

We  call  attention  to  the  increase  in  the  South  Atlantic 
and  South  Central  States  shown  in  the  table  following. 
Although  the  average  in  these  states  is  below  the  average 

[13] 


Has  Our  Present  System  Broken  Down? 


in  the  other  groups  the  relative  progress  made  has  been 
much  greater.  This  reflects  to  a large  extent  the  effect 
of  more  schooling  for  the  negro  population. 


NUMBER  OF  YEARS*  ATTENDANCE  BY  DIVISIONS 


Divisions 

1870 

1880 

1890 

1900 

1910 

19H 

The  United  States 

. 2.91 

3.45 

3.85 

4.67 

5.40 

5.64 

North  Atlantic  Division  . . 

. 4.43 

4.84 

4.99 

5.91 

6.38 

6.64 

North  Central  Division  . . 

. 3.71 

4.19 

4.67 

5.57 

6.28 

6.47 

South  Atlantic  Division  . . 

.80 

1.90 

2.42 

2.95 

3.93 

4.23 

South  Central  Division  . . . 

.80 

1.57 

2.20 

2.91 

3.77 

3.95 

Western  Division 

. 2.77 

3.57 

3.98 

4.99 

6.29 

6.80 

(U.S.  Bureau  of  Education, 

, Annual  Report 

for  1916,  Vol 

L 2f  p. 

6.) 

INCREASED  EXPENDITURES  FOR  EDUCATION 
Do  the  expenditures  by  the  states  and  local  govern- 
ments for  public  education  show  that  they  are  stinting 
the  support  of  the  schools  as  is  alleged  by  those  who 
claim  our  present  method  of  state  and  local  support  has 
broken  down?  The  increase  in  expenditures  for  public 
schools  since  1870  has  been  as  follows: 


School  Year 

Total  Expenditures 

1871 

$63,396,666 

1880 

78,094,687 

1890 

140,506,715 

1900 

214,964,618 

1910 

426,250,434 

1918 

763,678,089 

1920 

1,103,651,201* 

(U.  S.  Bureau  of  Education,  Bulletin  11,  1920,  p.  4.) 

According  to  these  figures  the  expenditures  for  the 
public  school  system  of  the  country  increased  from 
$63,396,666  in  1871  to  $1,103,651,201  in  1920,  or  more 
than  sixteen  times,  while  the  school  population  during 
the  same  period  increased  slightly  more  than  three  times. 

SOURCES  OF  FUNDS 

Local  taxes  are  the  mainstay  in  the  increasing  cost 
of  the  public  schools. 


* Obtained  from  Bureau  of  Education. 

[14] 


Has  Our  Present  System  Broken  Down? 


SOURCES  OF  FUNDS  AVAILABLE  FOR  PUBLIC  SCHOOL  PURPOSES, 

1890-1918 


Income  of  Permanent 

All  Other 

Funds  & Lands 

Local  Taxes 

State  Taxes 

Sources 

Total 

1890 

$7,744,765 

$97,222,426 

$26,345,323 

$11,882,292 

$143,194,806 

1895 

7,800,740 

118,915,304 

34,638,098 

15,210,769 

176,564,911 

1900 

9,152,274 

149,486,845 

37,886,740 

23,240,130 

219,765,989 

1905 

13,194,042 

210,167,770 

44,349,295 

34,107,962 

301,819,069 

1910 

14,096,555 

312,221,582 

64,604,701 

42,140,859 

433,063,697 

1915 

17,079,977 

456,956,495 

91,104,045 

24,511,076 

589,651,593 

1918 

21,517,040 

580,619,460 

101,305,057 

33,434,885 

736,876,442 

(U.  S.  Bureau  of  Education,  Bulletin  11,  1920,  p.  4.) 


In  the  28  years  from  1890  to  1918  local  taxation  for 
public  schools  increased  from  $97,222,426  to  $580,619,460 
or  498  per  cent.  In  1890,  67.9  per  cent  of  the  support 
of  the  public  schools  was  paid  by  local  taxation  and 
18.4  per  cent  by  the  state.  In  1918  the  figures  were 
78.8  per  cent  for  local  taxation  and  13.7  per  cent  for 
the  state,  showing  that  contributions  from  local  taxation 
have  made  the  faster  growth. 

INCREASE  IN  VALUE  OF  SCHOOL  PROPERTY 

The  increase  in  the  value  of  school  property  is  not 
less  remarkable,  the  increase  being  from  $130,383,008 
in  1870  to  $1,983,508,818  in  1918. 


Year 

Value  of  School  Property 

1870 

$130,383,008 

1880 

209,571,718 

1885 

263,668,536 

1890 

342,531,791 

1895 

440,666,022 

1900 

550,069,217 

1905 

733,446,805 

1910 

1,091,007,512 

1915 

1,567,391,225 

1918 

1,983,508,818 

(U.  S.  Bureau  of  Education,  Bulletin  11,  1920,  p.  4.) 

[15] 


Has  Our  Present  System  Broken  Down  f 


QUALITY  OF  INSTRUCTION 

Not  only  has  there  been  a notable  increase  in  the 
quantity  of  education  given  our  children  since  1870, 
but  even  more  notable  has  been  the  improvement  in 
the  quality  of  our  schools;  better  teachers,  better  text- 
books, better  methods  of  instruction,  better  buildings 
and  equipment;  the  whole  spirit  of  our  public  school 
instruction  has  been  revolutionized  in  the  past  fifty  years, 
or  even  within  the  past  two  decades.  Within  a brief 
period  of  time  we  have  seen  the  real  development  of  the 
kindergarten,  a new  science  of  educational  psychology 
with  less  emphasis  upon  learning  from  books  and  more 
emphasis  upon  learning  by  doing,  the  introduction  of 
manual  training,  of  drawing,  of  music,  school  gardens, 
playgrounds,  and  a multitude  of  other  improvements 
in  educational  methods.  It  is  safe  to  say  that  public 
education  within  the  past  two  decades  has  made  more 
rapid  progress  than  for  any  corresponding  period  in 
the  history  of  American  education.  In  many  respects 
within  recent  years  the  American  school  system  has 
become  the  center  of  educational  interest  for  the  world. 

PROGRESS  IN  SPITE  OF  SERIOUS  OBSTACLES 
The  development  of  public  education  in  this  country 
has  gone  steadily  forward  in  spite  of  certain  serious 
obstacles  to  educational  progress. 

Chief  among  these  obstacles  should  be  mentioned 
the  following  facts:  (1)  that  the  South  did  not  re- 
cover from  the  Civil  War  until  toward  the  end  of  the 
19th  century;  (2)  that  the  enfranchisement  of  nearly 
four  million  negro  slaves  thrust  upon  the  South  and 
upon  the  country  a tremendous  educational  problem; 
(3)  that  the  constant  stream  of  immigrants,  particu- 
larly from  Eastern  and  Southern  Europe,  presented 
educational  problems  of  great  magnitude. 

STANDARDS  OF  CRITICISM  RISING 
It  should  be  noted  also  that  many  of  the  defects  which 

[161 


Has  Our  Present  System  Broken  Down? 


we  now  recognize  in  our  system  of  public  education  are 
defects  of  which  we  have  become  conscious  only  within 
the  last  few  years.  Some  of  the  defects  were  not  clear 
to  the  American  people  until  the  disclosures  of  the 
selective  draft.  Other  defects  have  been  disclosed  only 
within  recent  years  as  improved  methods  of  educational 
analysis  have  been  available  and  as  comprehensive  sur- 
veys and  intensive  investigations  have  brought  to  light 
conditions  which  may  have  been  familiar  to  specialists 
in  education,  but  which  were  not  known  to  people  in 
general. 

It  is  further  to  be  noted  that  within  the  last  few  years 
the  science  of  education  has  developed  far  higher  stand- 
ards for  education  and  that  it  is  unfair  to  indict  states 
and  communities  for  failure  to  reach  right  away  edu- 
cational standards  which  have  been  raised  markedly 
within  a short  time. 

Never  have  the  states  and  communities  been  so 
alive  to  the  needs  of  education  and  so  ready  to  meet 
those  needs  as  at  the  present  time. 

BASIS  OF  ATTACK  ON  PRESENT  PUBLIC 
EDUCATION  SYSTEM 

The  leaders  in  the  movement  to  secure  fifty  millions 
of  Federal  money  for  teachers’  salaries  and  the  other 
lesser  appropriations  of  the  Sterling-Towner  Bill  have 
felt  that  as  an  essential  part  of  their  case  and  to  clear 
the  way  for  the  Federal  Government  to  take  hold  they 
must  establish  the  breakdown  of  our  educational  system 
or  at  least  that  the  people  of  this  country  are  today 
suddenly  confronted  with  a great  educational  emergency 
which  requires  an  immediate  remedy. 

This  general  indictment  against  our  present  educa- 
tional system  was  briefly  summarized  before  the  Joint 
Senate  and  House  Committee  on  Education,  1919,  by 
Dr.  George  D.  Stray er.  President  of  the  National  Edu- 
cation Association  and  Chairman  of  the  National  Edu- 
cation Association  “Emergency  Commission”: 

[17] 


Has  Our  Present  System  Broken  Down? 


“As  chairman  of  the  Commission  on  Emergency- 
in  Education,*  we  gathered  the  facts  with  respect  to 
education  in  the  United  States  and  found  . . . that 
the  particular  emergencies  which  confront  us  in  the 
United  States  at  this  time  have  to  do  with  the  over- 
whelming number  of  illiterates,  the  need  for  the 
Americanization  of  the  foreigners  who  live  among 
us,  the  training  of  teachers,  the  establishment  of  a 
program  of  physical  education  and  health  service, 
and  the  equalization  of  educational  opportunity.” 
(Record  of  Joint  Hearings  before  Committees  on 
Education  and  Labor,  Sixty-Sixth  Congress,  First 
Session,  July,  1919,  p.  49.) 

Charles  B.  Stillman,  President  of  the  American  Fed- 
eration of  Teachers,  said  at  the  same  hearing: 

“In  conclusion,  you  will  readily  agree  that  the 
threatened  breakdown  of  our  educational  system 
which  this  bill  is  designed  to  avert  would  be  very 
disastrous  to  the  Nation  as  a whole,  more  disastrous 
to  the  Nation  as  a whole  than  to  any  State  or  local- 
ity.” (Record  of  Joint  Hearings,1919,  p.  112.) 

These  attacks  are  based  largely  upon  conditions  which 
came  to  light  or  received  new  emphasis  as  the  result 
of  our  war  experiences,  and  the  charges  are  as  follows: 

1.  The  illiteracy  of  our  people. 

2.  Failure  to  Americanize  the  foreign-born  population. 

3.  Low  physical  standard  of  our  population. 

4.  Inadequate  rural  schools. 

5.  Shortage  of  teachers. 

6.  Low  salaries  of  teachers. 

7.  Poor  quality  of  teachers. 

The  attack  along  these  lines  has  been  developed  by 
what  we  think  may  be  described  as  the  “shock”  method. 

REVELATIONS  OF  THE  WAR 

Some  of  these  conditions,  like  the  acute  shortage 
of  teachers,  applied  to  every  line  of  public  and  private 
activity  and  were  temporary  in  their  nature  and  are 


Appointed  by  the  National  Education  Association. 


Has  Our  Present  System  Broken  Down? 


now  fast  approaching,  if  not  already  back,  to  normal. 
The  war  unquestionably  also  did  reveal  to  us  in  educa- 
tion as  in  other  directions  weaknesses  which  should  be 
attended  to  and  mended  as  soon  as  possible. 

We  must  maintain,  however,  our  perspective  as  to 
these  things,  and  we  want  to  say  at  the  outset  that  the 
war  also  revealed,  in  a way  that  inspired  the  soul  of 
every  American  citizen,  the  essential  vigor  and  strength 
of  the  American  people  and  the  soundness  of  American 
institutions.  It  established  that,  despite  a recent  Civil 
War,  and  despite  the  many  alien  and  polyglot  elements 
of  which  our  population  is  composed,  there  was  a national 
consciousness,  intense,  united,  and  vigorous,  certainly 
not  surpassed  by  any  other  belligerent  nation.  The 
intelligence,  resourcefulness,  and  skill  of  our  men  in  the 
field,  and  of  the  men  and  women  in  the  workshops  and 
civilian  war  activities,  bore  eloquent  witness  to  the  gen- 
eral soundness  of  the  educational  training  of  our  people. 

Illiteracy 

Congressman  Towner  states  the  illiteracy  charge  as 
follows : 

“The  disclosure  of  the  draft,  by  which  it  was 
ascertained  that  out  of  2,400,000  young  men  between 
the  ages  of  21  and  31,  700,000  of  them  — almost  one- 
third  — were  not  able  to  read  and  write,  was  a re- 
flection upon  our  educational  interests  in  the  United 
States  that  ought  to  be  blotted  out,  ought  to  be 
obliterated,  just  as  soon  as  it  is  possible  for  us  to 
accomplish  it.  The  number  of  illiterates  in  this 
country  is  increasing  — not  decreasing.  The  con- 
ditions that  exist  in  this  country,  where  so  many 
men  and  women  and  children  — probably  between 
twelve  and  fifteen  million  of  them  — that  cannot 
read  the  English  language,  the  language  of  our  Gov- 
ernment, the  language  of  our  social  intercourse,  the 
language  of  our  commercial  business  interests,  is  a 
condition  that  reflects  great  discredit  upon  this 
country.”  (Record  of  Joint  Hearings,  1919,  p.  11.) 


Has  Our  Present  System  Broken  Down? 


The  illiteracy  charge  is  also  made  in  the  resolution  of 
the  National  Education  Association  as  presented  at 
the  same  hearing  by  Dr.  George  D.  Strayer,  at  that 
time  its  President: 

“An  alarming  percentage  of  illiteracy  in  our  popu- 
lation shown  by  the  Army  tests  to  be  approximately 
20  per  cent  of  the  total  population.”  (Record  of 
Joint  Hearings,  1919,  p.  71.) 

But  Congressman  Towner  and  the  framers  of  the 
resolution  quoted  are  by  no  means  the  only  educational 
authorities  who  have  been  misled  by  the  Army  sta- 
tistics. We  find  in  the  report  of  the  U.  S.  Commissioner 
of  Education  for  1921  the  following  statement: 

“The  war  has  made  appalling  revelations.  Some 
of  the  outstanding  things  are:  The  illiteracy  of  prac- 
tically 25  per  cent  of  the  population,  the  serious  lack 
of  attention  to  health,  hygiene  and  physical  education, 
the  urgent  need  for  Americanizing  our  heterogeneous 
foreign  elements.  All  these  are  matters  of  national 
importance  and  need  subsidies  from  the  Federal 
Government.”  (U.  S.  Commissioner  of  Education, 
Annual  Report,  1921,  p.  36.) 

NUMBER  OF  ILLITERATES  IS  DECREASING 

The  number  of  illiterates  in  this  country  is  not  in- 
creasing, as  stated  by  Congressman  Towner.  Not  only 
has  the  percentage  of  illiteracy  decreased,  as  we  have 
already  noted,  but  the  actual  number  of  illiterates  has 
decreased  substantially  in  every  decade.  The  census 
figures  since  1890  are  as  follows: 


Number  of 

Per  Cent  of 

Year 

Illiterates 

Total  Population 

1890 

6,324,702 

13.3 

1900 

6,180,069 

10.7 

1910 

5,516,163 

7.7 

1920 

4,931,905 

[201 

6.0 

Has  Our  Present  System  Broken  Down? 


The  percentage  of  illiteracy  is  not  20  per  cent,  as 
stated  in  Dr.  Strayer’s  resolution.  According  to  the 
1920  census  it  is  6 per  cent. 

THE  ARMY  STATISTICS 

There  have  been  so  many  erroneous  conclusions  based 
upon  the  psychological  tests  given  in  the  Army  that  it 
has  become  essential  to  carefully  analyze  the  data. 
We  therefore  give  the  original  official  statement  in  the 
Appendix.  (Official  Report  of  the  Division  of  Psy- 
chology of  the  Office  of  the  Surgeon-General,  published 
with  the  approval  of  the  Department  of  War.  Chapter 
9,  p.  743  ff.  See  Appendix  A.) 

ANALYSIS  OF  ARMY  ILLITERACY  STATISTICS 
It  will  be  seen  from  this  official  statement  that  strictly 
speaking  there  was  no  examination  for  literacy  in  the 
drafted  army.  About  fifteen  hundred  thousand  men  were 
given  psychological  tests  and  were  divided  for  that  pur- 
pose into  two  groups:  — those  who  were  supposed  to  be 
able  to  read  and  write  English  readily  enough  to  answer 
questions  in  a very  short  time,  measured  by  a stop-watch; 
and  those  whose  knowledge  was  presumably  insufficient 
for  that  kind  of  examination.  In  some  camps  the  men 
were  asked  if  they  could  read  newspapers  and  write 
letters  in  English;  in  other  camps  they  were  asked  if 
they  had  finished  four,  six,  or  even  seven  grades  in  school. 
For  three  of  the  camps  no  basis  for  the  testing  of  literacy 
was  reported.  The  other  camps  varied  from  the  third 
grade  standard,  as  in  Camp  Wadsworth,  to  seventh 
grade  standard,  as  in  Camp  Wheeler  and  in  Camp  Grant, 
in  the  latter  camp  this  meaning  ability  to  “read  and  write 
rapidly.”  In  seven  camps  the  standard  was  not  defined 
in  terms  of  school  grades  but  solely  as  “read  and  write,” 
meaning  sufficient  facility  in  reading  newspapers  and 
writing  letters  home  in  English  to  satisfy  the  particular 
examining  officer.  In  a number  of  cases  the  standard 
was  changed  during  the  period  covered  by  the  sta- 

[21] 


Has  Our  Present  System  Broken  Down? 


tistics,  though  the  number  of  men  examined  on  each 
of  the  respective  bases  is  not  stated.  The  tests  were  so 
far  from  being  uniform  that  they  hardly  warrant  a 
definite  conclusion. 

It  is  also  true  that  the  men  submitted  to  these  psy- 
chological tests  did  not  accurately  represent  our  general 
population  for  four  reasons.  First,  they  were  all  men 
from  twenty-one  to  thirty -one  years  of  age,  and  the  1920 
census  shows  that  in  this  age-group  there  exists  even 
among  natives  an  illiteracy  rate  at  least  twice  as  great 
as  that  of  the  general  average  of  the  total  population 
if  we  go  down  to  children  over  ten,  because  of  the  steady 
improvement  in  our  schools.  Second,  because  so  many 
immigrants  to  this  country  come  at  about  the  age  of 
twenty,  and  moreover  a large  proportion  of  them  are 
males,  so  that  the  proportion  of  foreign-born  men  of 
military  age  is  much  greater  than  among  the  popula- 
tion at  large.  Third,  there  were  1,400,000  volunteers. 
Fourth,  there  were  hundreds  of  thousands  of  men  ex- 
cused from  the  draft  on  account  of  being  public  officials 
or  ministers  or  students  or  indispensable  employees  in 
war  industries,  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  amount 
of  illiteracy  among  these  men  was  much  less  than  that  in 
the  drafted  group. 

The  Army  tests  did  bring  home  to  us,  however, 
that  a distressingly  large  proportion  of  our  population 
must  still  be  classified  as  “less  literate”  — the  term 
used  in  the  Army  report — but  that  is  not  the  same  as 
illiterate  and  its  definition  is  far  from  being  clear. 

NATIVE  WHITE  ILLITERATES 

We  cannot  accurately  comprehend  the  literacy  situa- 
tion without  further  analysis. 

There  are  really  three  distinct  problems  involved  — 
the  native  white  population,  negro  population,  and 
foreign-born  population. 

The  number  of  native  white  illiterates  has  decreased 
steadily  and  rapidly  since  1880: 

[22] 


Has  Our  Present  System  Broken  Down  ? 


Year 

Number 

Per  Cent. 

1880 

2,255,460 

8.7 

1890 

2,065,003 

6.2 

1900 

1,913,611 

4.6 

1910 

1,534,272 

3.0 

1920 

1,242,572 

2.0 

It  will  be  seen  that  whereas  in  1880  out  of  every 
thousand  native  whites  ten  years  old  and  over,  eighty- 
seven  were  illiterate,  in  1920  only  twenty  were  illit- 
erate. During  the  past  decade  the  percentage  of 
illiteracy  decreased  in  every  single  state  except  those 
which  had  already  reached  in  1910  what  is  virtually 
an  irreducible  minimum  — less  than  one-half  of  one  per 
cent. 

The  following  states  showed  in  1920  an  illiteracy 
rate  for  native  whites  in  excess  of  the  average  for  the 
country : 


1920 

1910 

1900 

1890 

1880 

New  Mexico 

11.6 

14.9 

29.4 

42.8 

64.2 

Louisiana 

10.5 

13.4 

17.3 

20.3 

19.8 

North  Carolina 

8.2 

12.3 

19.5 

23.1 

31.7 

Tennessee 

7.3 

9.7 

14.2 

18.0 

27.8 

Kentucky 

7.0 

10.0 

12.8 

16.1 

22.8 

South  Carolina 

6.5 

10.3 

13.6 

18.1 

22.4 

Alabama 

6.3 

9.9 

14.8 

18.4 

25.0 

Virginia 

5.9 

8.0 

11.1 

14.0 

18.5 

Georgia 

5.4 

7.8 

11.9 

16.5 

23.2 

West  Virginia 

4.6 

6.4 

10.0 

12.9 

18.6 

Arkansas 

4.5 

7.0 

11.6 

16.6 

25.5 

Mississippi 

3.6 

5.2 

8.0 

11.9 

16.6 

Texas 

3.0 

4.3 

6.1 

8.3 

13.9 

Florida 

2.9 

5.0 

8.6 

11.3 

20.7 

Oklahoma 

2.3 

3.3 

7.7 

3.4 

— 

Arizona 

2.1 

4.2 

6.2 

7.9 

8.1 

Although  the  illiteracy  rate  in  several  of  the  South- 
ern and  Southwestern  States  is  considerably  above 
the  average  for  the  country  as  a whole,  rapid  prog- 
ress is  being  made  by  the  educational  systems  of 

[23] 


Has  Our  Present  System  Broken  Down? 


these  states  in  reducing  illiteracy.  Certainly  the  record 
does  not  indicate  failure  of  the  present  state  educational 
systems. 


NEGRO  ILLITERATES 

Negro  illiteracy  has  also  shown  a steady  decrease  since 
1880,  as  appears  by  the  following  Census  statistics: 

1880  — 700  out  of  every  thousand  negroes  of  ten 
years  of  age  and  over  were  illiterate. 

1920  — The  number  had  been  reduced  to  229  out  of 
every  thousand. 

The  figures  in  numbers  and  percentages  since  1880 
are  as  follows: 


Year 

Illiterate  Negroes 

Per  Cent. 

1880 

3,220,878 

70.0 

1890 

3,042,668 

57.1 

1900 

2,853,194 

44.5 

1910 

2,227,731 

30.4 

1920 

1,842,161 

22.9 

The  1920  census  shows  that  the  following  states 
have  a rate  of  negro  illiteracy  in  excess  of  the  aver- 
age for  the  country.  The  percentage  of  negro  illit- 
eracy in  these  same  states  for  previous  decades  is  also 
shown : 


States 

1920 

1910 

1900 

1890 

1880 

Virginia 

23.5 

30.0 

44.6 

57.2 

73.6 

North  Carolina 

24.5 

31.9 

47.6 

60.1 

77.4 

South  Carolina 

29.3 

38.7 

52.8 

64.1 

78.5 

Georgia 

29.1 

36.5 

52.4 

67.3 

81.5 

Alabama 

31.3 

40.1 

57.4 

69.1 

80.6 

Mississippi 

29.3 

35.6 

49.1 

60.8 

75.1 

Louisiana 

38.5 

48.4 

61.1 

72.1 

79.0 

Although  the  percentage  of  negro  illiteracy  is  still 
much  higher  than  that  of  the  whites,  the  steady  improve- 
ment indicated  by  the  above  figures  shows  good,  indeed 
remarkable  progress.  In  considering  the  figures  we 

[24] 


Has  Our  Present  System  Broken  Down? 


must  bear  in  mind  that  the  illiteracy  problem  of  the 
negroes  has  been  entirely  separate  from  that  of  the  whites 
because  at  the  close  of  the  Civil  War  the  negro  popula- 
tion (approximately  4,000,000)  was  almost  entirely 
illiterate,  and  it  was  hardly  possible  to  make  much 
progress  in  the  education  of  the  illiterate  negro  adults. 
The  statistics  show  the  result  of  the  gradual  dying  off 
of  the  older  illiterate  negroes  and  the  effect  of  the  educa- 
tional opportunities  which  have  been  created  for  negro 
children  during  the  past  few  decades. 

EFFECT  OF  NORTHERN  MIGRATION  OF  NEGROES 
A factor  in  arousing  greater  public  interest  in  negro 
education  in  the  Southern  States  has  been  the  large 
emigration  of  negroes  northward  in  recent  years.  It 
is  estimated  that  not  less  than  three-quarters  of  a million 
negroes  went  North  in  the  four  years  1915-1918.  Al- 
though the  higher  wages  resulting  from  the  shortage 
of  labor  under  war  conditions  in  the  industrial  states 
were  the  main  factor  in  causing  the  movement  North, 
the  desire  to  take  advantage  of  the  better  educational 
conditions  in  the  North  was  also  an  important  influence. 

The  present  policy  of  restriction  of  foreign  immi- 
gration is  bound  to  continue  to  bring  the  industrial 
districts  of  the  country  into  competition  with  the  South, 
for  negro  labor  and  the  necessity  for  improving  educa- 
tional conditions  in  the  Southern  States  as  a means  of 
holding  the  best  negro  labor  is  an  argument  the  impor- 
tance of  which  has  already  been  strongly  felt  in  some 
states.  We  quote  from  the  report  of  the  State  Super- 
intendent of  Education  of  North  Carolina: 

“There  is  another  phase  of  this  problem  of  negro 
education  worthy  of  the  serious  consideration  of  our 
people.  It  is  manifest  to  me  that  if  the  negroes  be- 
come convinced  that  they  are  to  be  deprived  of  their 
schools  and  of  the  opportunities  of  an  education, 
most  of  the  wisest  and  most  self-respecting  negroes 

[25] 


Has  Our  Present  System  Broken  Down  ? 


will  leave  the  State,  and  eventually  there  will  be  left 
here  only  the  indolent,  worthless  and  criminal  part 
of  the  negro  population.  Already  there  has  been 
considerable  emigration  of  negroes  from  the  State. 

. . . Their  emigration  in  large  numbers  would  result 
in  a complication  of  the  labor  problem.  Some  of  our 
Southern  farms  would  be  compelled  to  lie  untenanted 
and  untilled.  The  experience  of  one  district  in  Wilson 
County  some  years  ago  illustrates  this.  The  county 
board  of  education  found  it,  for  various  reasons, 
impossible  to  purchase  a site  for  a negro  schoolhouse. 
Before  the  year  was  out  the  board  received  several 
offers  from  farmers  to  donate  a site.  Upon  inquiry 
by  the  chairman  of  the  board  as  to  the  reason  of 
these  generous  offers,  he  was  told  that  when  it  was 
learned  that  no  site  for  the  schoolhouse  could  be 
secured  and  that  the  negroes  were  to  have  no  school 
in  that  district,  at  least  one-third  of  the  best  negro 
tenants  and  laborers  there  moved  into  other  dis- 
tricts, where  they  could  have  the  advantage  of  a 
school.  This  is  a practical  side  of  this  question  that 
our  people  would  do  well  to  consider.  What  hap- 
pened in  this  district  will  happen  in  the  entire  state 
if  we  give  the  best  negroes  reasonable  grounds  to 
believe  that  their  public  school  privileges  are  to  be 
decreased  or  withdrawn.”  (U.  S.  Bureau  of  Educa- 
tion, Biennial  Survey,  1919,  p.  432.) 

GROWTH  IN  SOUTH  OF  PUBLIC  INTEREST  IN  NEGRO 
EDUCATION 

As  indicating  also  the  change  in  the  public  attitude 
toward  negro  education,  we  quote  from  the  report  of  the 
Superintendent  of  Education  of  South  Carolina,  for 
the  year  1918: 

“For  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  our  public 
school  system,  State  Superintendent’s  office  has 
undertaken  definitely  the  betterment  of  our  negro 
schools.  . . . 

“The  task  is  difficult.  Houses,  terms,  salaries, 
equipment,  standards  — all  these  are  low.  Funds 

[26] 


Has  Our  Present  System  Broken  Down? 


are  limited.  A foundation  must  be  laid  in  public 
opinion  and  in  public  support  before  a definite  pro- 
gram can  be  outlined  and  undertaken. 

“The  present  welfare  and  future  progress  of  the 
State  are  indissolubly  linked  with  the  development 
of  our  entire  population.  A careful  perusal  of  the 
chapter  dealing  with  negro  schools  will  show  specifi- 
cally the  work  undertaken  during  the  year.  The 
co-operation  of  outside  agencies  is  readily  acknowl- 
edged. The  attitude  of  the  negro  has  been  apprecia- 
tive, and  in  my  opinion  the  time  has  come  when  the 
general  assembly  ought  to  authorize  and  direct  a 
campaign  for  better  health  and  better  industrial 
conditions  among  the  negroes. 

“The  foundation  for  such  effort  lies  in  the  schools. 
The  prejudice  that  has  long  hampered  the  progress 
of  the  negro  youth  has  been  largely  modified  by  the 
events  of  the  past  two  years.  The  first  step  in  the 
program  for  their  betterment  would  be  a modest 
appropriation  to  be  expended  solely  in  negro  schools.” 
(U.  S.  Bureau  of  Education,  Biennial  Survey,  1919, 
p.  433.) 

As  an  indication,  however,  of  some  of  the  difficulties 
still  pertaining  to  negro  education,  we  quote  from  a 
publication  of  the  Louisiana  Department  of  Education: 

“It  may  be  well  to  point  out  here  that  in  some 
sections  of  the  State  the  negro  is  not  receiving  for 
the  education  of  his  race  the  direct  school  taxes  that 
he  contributes.  To  fail  to  grant  him  this  amounts  to 
confiscation.  ...  In  dealing  with  this  question  we 
must  learn  to  apply  the  same  standards  of  honesty 
and  fairness  that  we  use  in  dealing  with  the  different 
white  schools  and  white  communities.  Only  through 
the  exercise  of  justice  and  fair  play  may  we  expect 
justice  and  fair  play  in  return  and  as  a result  of  this 
good  feeling  and  good  citizenship.”  (“Aims  and 
Needs  in  Negro  Public  Education  in  Louisiana,” 
issued  in  1918,  quoted  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Education, 
Biennial  Survey,  1919,  p.  434.) 


Has  Our  Present  System  Broken  Down  ? 


PROGRESS  OF  EDUCATION  IN  SOUTH  SINCE 
CIVIL  WAR 

The  progress  made  by  the  South  in  education  is  well 
described  in  Graves’  “History  of  Education  in  Modern 
Times”  as  follows: 

“ With  the  cessation  of  the  reconstruction  influence 
and  the  subsidence  of  the  dread  of  mixed  schools, 
attendance  and  appropriations  have  greatly  in- 
creased, girls  have  come  to  be  given  equal  oppor- 
tunities with  the  boys,  the  education  of  colored 
children  has  been  adequately  supported,  and  pro- 
vision has  been  made  for  training  and  stimulating 
teachers  of  both  races.  Separate  state  institutions 
for  higher  education,  cultural  and  vocational,  have 
been  established  to  furnish  a broad  education  for 
both  whites  and  negroes.  Since  1890  there  has  been 
no  evidence  of  any  widespread  hostility  to  public 
education,  and  the  expenditures  and  intensive  im- 
provement of  the  schools  have  been  constantly 
progressing.  Thus,  in  the  Southern  States  there  has 
been  a continual,  though  somewhat  fluctuating, 
growth  of  a sentiment  for  common  schools  from  the 
time  of  its  initiation  by  the  broad-visioned  Jefferson 
to  the  universal  sentiment  of  today.  It  evolved 
through  long  years  of  varied  success  and  failure, 
broke  its  chrysalis  after  the  wreck  of  the  Civil  War, 
and  gradually  attained  to  its  present  proportions. 
Its  achievements  during  the  past  two  decades  seem 
almost  unparalleled  in  history.”  (Graves’  “History 
of  Education  in  Modern  Times,”  p.  271.) 

STERLING-TOWNER  BILL  DOES  NOT  SPECIFICALLY  AP- 
PROPRIATE ONE  DOLLAR  FOR  NEGRO  SCHOOLS 
The  Sterling-Towner  Bill  appears  to  take  no  cogni- 
zance of  the  problem  of  negro  education  as  such.  The 
bill  does  not  specifically  appropriate  one  dollar  for 
negro  schools  out  of  this  one  hundred  million  dollar 
appropriation.  It  is  entirely  impossible  to  estimate 
what  sum  of  money  or  what  proportion  of  the  total 

[28] 


Has  Our  Present  System  Broken  Down  ? 


donated  to  a state  where  the  percentage  of  negro 
illiteracy  is  high  would  be  devoted  to  removing  negro 
illiteracy. 

Foreign-Born  Illiterates  — Americanization 

The  second  charge  in  the  indictment  of  our  educational 
system,  — that  it  has  failed  to  Americanize  the  foreign 
population,  — in  the  resolution  of  the  National  Educa- 
tion Association,  to  which  we  have  referred,  is  stated 
as  follows: 

“An  increasingly  large  un- Americanized  element, 
both  native  and  foreign  born,  in  our  population 
evidenced  by  statistical  research  to  be  one  in  three.” 
(Record  of  Joint  Hearings,  1919,  p.  71.) 

It  is  stated  more  conservatively  by  Congressman 
Towner  in  a recent  speech : 

“ Consider  the  condition  of  our  immigrant  popula- 
tion. We  now  have  15,000,000  foreign  born  people 
in  the  United  States.  More  than  5,000,000  cannot 
speak,  read  or  write  English.  More  than  2,000,000 
cannot  read  or  write  any  language.  Unfortunately 
these  foreigners  often  group  themselves  into  alien 
settlements  or  colonies  where  our  language  is  not 
spoken,  where  our  journals  are  not  read,  and  where 
the  whole  environment  is  un-American.”  (Uni- 
versity of  Illinois  Bulletin,  December  26, 1921,  p.  83.) 

In  another  part  of  the  same  speech  he  said : 

“Take  illiteracy  as  an  example  and  consider  con- 
ditions. The  census  of  1910  showed  that  in  the 
United  States  there  were  5,500,000  over  ten  years  of 
age  who  could  not  read  or  write  any  language.  In 
addition  there  were  3,500,000  who  could  not  speak 
or  read  or  write  English.  This  placed  us  below  the 
standard  of  most  of  the  civilized  nations  of  the 
world.” 

According  to  the  1920  census  the  foreign-born  popu- 
lation of  the  United  States  of  ten  years  of  age  and  over 


Has  Our  Present  System  Broken  Down? 


was  13,497,866,  of  whom  1,763,740  or  13.1  per  cent  were 
illiterate.  Literacy  as  defined  by  the  census,  however,  is 
not  necessarily  literacy  in  the  English  language.  It 
means  ability  to  read  and  write  in  any  language. 

The  statistics  of  the  number  of  the  foreign-born  popu- 
lation unable  to  speak  English  have  recently  been  issued 
by  the  census  for  1920.  This  shows  that  of  the  13,497,866 
foreign-born  ten  years  of  age  and  over,  1,488,948  or  11 
per  cent  were  reported  as  unable  to  speak  English.  Both 
the  number  and  percentage  are  only  about  half  as  large 
as  in  1910,  when  2,953,011  foreign-born  white  persons  ten 
years  of  age  and  over  representing  22.8  per  cent  of  the 
total,  were  returned  as  unable  to  speak  English.  We 
find,  therefore,  that  instead  of  three  and  one-half  million 
of  our  foreign-born  population  unable  to  speak  English, 
as  stated  by  Congressman  Towner,  the  1920  census  shows 
the  number  to  be  less  than  1,500,000. 

INCREASE  IN  NUMBER  OF  FOREIGN-BORN  ILLITERATES 
DUE  TO  UNRESTRICTED  IMMIGRATION  POLICY 

In  1880  there  were  120  out  of  every  thousand  foreign- 
born  white,  ten  years  of  age  and  older,  who  were  illiter- 
ate; in  1920  out  of  every  thousand  131  were  illiterate, 
that  is,  unable  to  read  or  write  in  any  language. 

The  number  of  illiterate  foreign-born  and  the  ratio  for 
the  decades  since  1880  are  shown  in  the  following  table: 


Year 

Foreign-Born  Illiterates 

Per  Cent,  of 
All  Foreign  Born 

1880 

763,620 

12.0 

1890 

1,147,571 

13.1 

1900 

1,287,135 

12.9 

1910 

1,650,361 

12.7 

1920 

1,763,740 

13.1 

The  increase  in  the  number  of  foreign-born  illiterates 
cannot  be  considered  as  an  indictment  of  our  public 
school  system.  It  was  the  result  of  our  policy  of  admit- 
ting immigrants  without  prescribing  any  test  for  literacy. 

[30] 


Has  Our  Present  System  Broken  Down? 


From  1896  to  1921  there  were  3,450,000  immigrants 
(mostly  adults)  admitted  into  the  United  States  who 
could  not  read  or  write  in  any  language.  (See  Ap- 
pendix B.) 

It  is  therefore  not  surprising  to  find  that  in  1920  there 
had  been  a slight  increase  in  the  number  of  foreign-born 
illiterates  as  compared  with  1910. 

NEW  LITERACY  TEST  CUTS  OFF  FURTHER  ILLITERATE 
IMMIGRANTS  ALTOGETHER 

Congress  in  1917  went  to  the  very  heart  of  the  prob- 
lem of  foreign-born  illiteracy  by  providing  that  thereafter 
no  more  illiterate  immigrants  should  be  allowed  to  enter 
this  country.  This  is  one  of  the  causes  now  in  operation 
which  beyond  peradventure  of  a doubt  will  cause  the  next 
census  to  show  a drop  in  illiteracy  beyond  anything 
heretofore  accomplished  in  the  United  States. 

IMMIGRATION  FROM  SOUTHERN  AND  EASTERN  EUROPE 
RESTRICTED  BY  QUOTA  LAW 

The  enormous  increase  in  the  volume  of  immigration 
from  the  countries  of  Southern  and  Eastern  Europe  in 
the  past  25  years  has  also  been  a big  factor  in  the  increase 
in  the  number  of  foreign-born  illiterates.  Until  1890 
the  greater  proportion  of  our  immigrants  came  from 
Northwestern  Europe.  A large  proportion  of  them  were 
English-speaking  people  and  those  who  came  from  the 
Continent  came  from  countries  with  institutions  gener- 
ally similar  to  our  own.  During  the  decade  from  1890  to 
1900  there  was  a marked  increase  in  the  immigration 
from  Southern  and  Eastern  Europe  where  educational 
standards  are  low  and  the  percentage  of  illiteracy  is 
high.  This  movement  continued  to  grow  and  continued 
in  great  volume  until  the  outbreak  of  the  European 
War.  This  immigration  came  from  the  following  coun- 
tries: Austria-Hungary,  Bulgaria,  Greece,  Italy,  Portu- 
gal, Rumania,  Russia,  Spain,  and  Turkey.  During  the 


Has  Our  Present  System  Broken  Down? 


period  1880  to  1921,  12,877,855  people  entered  this 
country  from  Southern  and  Eastern  Europe  and  Western 
Asia. 

Congress  itself  has  recently  attacked  this  problem  in 
the  most  radical  way  by  legislation  which  took  effect  in 
1921  and  which  reduces  largely  the  quota  of  immigrants 
which  can  yearly  enter  this  country  from  the  Mediter- 
ranean countries  and  Eastern  Europe.  Under  the  new 
law  the  annual  quota  for  the  fiscal  year  1922  for 
these  countries  is  157,489  (see  Appendix  D),  whereas 
during  the  decade  from  1900  to  1910  the  annual  aver- 
age immigration  from  these  countries  was  588,860,  and 
during  the  decade  from  1910  to  1919,  in  spite  of  the  prac- 
tical cutting  off  of  immigration  during  the  war  years, 
the  annual  average  was  402,696. 

MOVEMENT  BACK  TO  SOUTHERN  AND  EASTERN  EUROPE 

Another  favorable  factor  is  the  considerable  number  of 
immigrants  from  the  Southern  and  Eastern  European 
countries  who  after  living  here  a number  of  years  return 
home.  In  1920  the  emigrants  returning  to  countries  of 
Southern  and  Eastern  Europe  numbered  224,152  as 
against  151,712  new  immigrants  admitted  — a loss 
of  72,440.  In  1921  the  emigrants  to  those  countries 
numbered  188,132  as  against  357,350  immigrants  ad- 
mitted. It  is  true  that  the  figures  for  these  two  years 
show  a net  gain  of  96,778  immigrants  admitted,  but 
this  was  due  to  the  abnormal  Italian  immigration  in 
1921,  amounting  to  222,260,  caused  by  eagerness  to  get 
into  the  country  before  the  new  law  limiting  the  number 
of  immigrants  became  effective.  Moreover  many  of 
those  returning  home  were  illiterate,  while  the  newcomers 
must  have  been  able,  since  the  new  law  of  1917,  at  least 
to  read  and  write  in  their  own  language.  During  the 
current  year  immigration  from  the  countries  of  Southern 
and  Eastern  Europe  has  just  about  been  balanced  by  the 
emigrants  returning  home  to  these  countries.  The 

[32] 


Has  Our  Present  System  Broken  Down? 


figures  for  the  year  July  1,  1921  to  June  30,  1922  are: 
immigrants  136,543,  emigrants  142,115,  a net  loss  of 
5572.  (See  Appendix  E.) 

CONCLUSION 

Beyond  question  the  war  disclosed  great  need  for 
provisions  which  may  safeguard  American  institutions 
against  the  dangers  of  an  unassimilated  foreign  popula- 
tion. But  it  also  disclosed  their  essential  stability  and 
the  fact  that  old-world  traditions  and  old-world  associ- 
ations could  not  seriously  interfere  with  adherence  to 
American  ideals  and  American  institutions.  Although 
the  work  of  Americanization  is  one  of  our  important 
social  problems  it  is  time  for  us  to  recover  from  war 
hysteria  and  to  view  the  problem  in  its  proper  perspec- 
tive. Here  several  facts  should  be  remembered : 

1.  We  must  recognize  that  “Americanization”  is 
most  effectively  developed  through  participation  in 
daily  American  life.  It  is  not  a process  which  can  be 
imposed  to  a great  extent  upon  the  immigrant. 

2.  We  must  realize  that  the  place  to  control  the 
evil  possibilities  of  large  numbers  of  foreign  born  is 
at  its  source,  i.  e.,  in  our  immigration  laws. 

3.  This  has  already  been  provided  for  by  the  laws 
excluding  illiterate  immigrants  and  limiting  the 
amount  of  immigration.  Hence  the  problem  of 
“Americanization”  of  the  foreign  born  must  become 
one  of  constantly  decreasing  importance. 

4.  The  most  effective  agency  for  Americanization 
is  the  public  school  system.  The  most  important 
problem  of  Americanization  is  not  that  which  in- 
volves the  adult  immigrant  but  his  children.  A 
dollar  spent  on  the  second  generation  is  worth  many 
times  a dollar  spent  on  the  adult  immigrant  and 
accomplishes  things  with  children  which  cannot 
possibly  be  done  for  adults. 

5.  States  having  appreciable  proportions  of  foreign 
born  population  are  keenly  alive  to  the  problems  of 
Americanization  and  for  their  own  sakes  have  been 


Has  Our  Present  System  Broken  Down? 


attacking  them  with  vigor,  their  attempts  being  sup- 
plemented by  numerous  civic  agencies.  Further,  the 
states  in  which  the  problem  is  most  acute  are  our 
richest  states  which  neither  need  nor  ask  for  Federal 
aid  and  Federal  control. 

Physical  Standard  of  Population 

The  attack  on  the  present  educational  system  based 
upon  the  alleged  physical  unfitness  of  our  people  as  shown 
by  the  war,  in  the  resolution  of  the  National  Education 
Association  previously  quoted,  is  stated  as  follows: 

“an  astonishing  degree  of  physical  unfitness  in  our 
people  betraying  a lack  of  preparedness  either  for 
the  duties  of  defense  or  the  responsibilities  of  peace  — 
amounting  to  at  least  one-third  of  the  entire  adult 
population.”  (Record  of  Joint  Hearings,  July,  1919, 
p.  71.) 

Congressman  Towner  states  it  as  follows: 

“Perhaps  no  disclosure  of  the  draft  examinations 
carries  more  reproach  to  our  intelligence  than  the 
fact  that  out  of  about  2,400,000  young  men  examined 
for  service  700,000  or  nearly  one-third  were  found 
disqualified  because  of  physical  disability.  Ninety 
per  cent  of  these  disabilities  could  have  been  pre- 
vented by  a knowledge  of  the  simplest  rules  of 
hygiene  and  health.  It  was  ignorance,  gross 
ignorance,  that  in  the  vast  majority  of  cases  was 
the  cause  of  their  incompetence.”  (University  of 
Illinois  Bulletin,  December  26,  1921,  p.  84.) 

The  resolution  quoted  seems  to  depict  a race  that  is 
physically  decadent.  Here  again  conclusions  have  been 
based  upon  misinterpreted  army  statistics.  Nowhere 
in  the  indictment  against  the  present  educational  system 
by  the  proponents  of  federalization  is  the  lack  of  anal- 
ysis or  sober  thought  more  evident  than  in  the  dis- 
cussion of  this  question. 


Has  Our  Present  System  Broken  Down  ? 


EXAMINATION  OF  ARMY  FIGURES 

The  second  report  of  the  Provost  Marshal  General 
showed  that  of  the  3,200,000  men  examined  after  De- 
cember 15,  1917,  16.25  per  cent  were  totally  disqualified 
for  military  service.  This  is  quite  different  from  Con- 
gressman Towner’s  figure  of  one-third  disqualified.  But 
this  figure  is  not  a fair  index  of  the  condition  of  our  total 
male  population  of  military  age,  for  it  leaves  out  of 
consideration  over  500,000  men  drafted  before  December 
15,  1917,  and  about  1,400,000  volunteers  in  the  army, 
navy,  or  marine  corps,  who  were  100  per  cent  physically 
qualified.  All  of  the  men  between  21  and  31  who  were 
rejected  by  the  recruiting  officers,  or  by  the  draft  boards 
before  December  15,  1917,  were  reexamined  and  are  in- 
cluded in  the  16.25  per  cent  mentioned  above.  Most  of 
the  volunteers  were  under  31.  Making  proper  allowance 
for  the  volunteers,  it  would  seem  that  the  correct  figure 
for  the  proportion  of  men  21  to  31  years  of  age  who  are 
unfit  for  military  service  is  under  12  per  cent,  and  if  we 
choose  to  add  them  understanding^,  plus  about  8 per 
cent  of  men  in  good  general  health  but  not  qualified  for 
the  forced  marches  and  terrific  strain  of  front  line  battle 
conditions.  These  latter  men  were  classed  as  qualified 
for  limited  service.  Without  a doubt  these  figures  would 
have  been  considerably  reduced  if  the  war  had  lasted 
longer,  for  standards  of  fitness  are  not  absolute,  but  de- 
pend on  the  need  for  men.  With  24,000,000  men  of 
military  age  to  draw  from  we  naturally  set  our  standards 
high.  It  was  sound  policy  to  reject  men  who  would 
doubtless  have  been  accepted  by  the  other  belligerent 
nations.  We  were  looking  for  men  of  the  physical 
quality  which  the  Germans  assembled  in  their  shock 
battalions.  Moreover,  many  of  the  defects  which  dis- 
qualify for  military  service  in  no  way  disqualify  for 
ordinary  civilian  pursuits. 

As  for  the  number  of  disqualifications  that  might  have 
been  remedied  or  prevented  by  education,  no  one  can 


Has  Our  Present  System  Broken  Down? 


tell  how  great  this  was.  Many  of  the  commoner  causes 
of  disqualification  were  not  of  the  sort  that  are  generally 
considered  preventable  to  any  great  extent.  Flat  feet, 
hernia,  heart  disease,  defective  vision,  undersize,  in- 
sanity, feeble-mindedness,  malformation  of  the  limbs, 
varicose  veins,  wounds,  congenital  deformities  — to 
mention  a few  of  the  common  defects  — who  will  say 
that  ninety  per  cent  of  these  are  preventable  by  edu- 
cation? 

PUBLIC  HEALTH  WORK  A RECENT  DEVELOPMENT 

In  considering  the  development  of  health  work  in 
our  public  school  system,  in  order  to  get  a fair  picture 
of  the  situation  we  should  remember  that  the  whole 
conception  of  preventive  medicine  is  quite  new  even 
in  the  medical  profession.  Louis  Pasteur,  considered 
the  founder  of  modern  preventive  medicine,  died  in 
1895.  Harvard  University  Medical  School,  for  example, 
did  not  establish  a chair  for  preventive  medicine  until 
1909.  If  we  go  back  to  the  Civil  War  we  find  that  the 
improvement  in  the  condition  of  the  health  of  our  pop- 
ulation during  the  past  fifty  years  has  been  most  notable. 
The  first  Health  Commissioner  of  New  York  City  is 
still  alive  and  has  recently  given  a picture  of  the  status 
of  public  health  administration  at  the  close  of  the 
Civil  War: 

“New  York  had  no  effective  sanitary  administra- 
tion. There  were  numerous  departments  filled  with 
active  politicians,  but  not  one  had  any  expert  super- 
vision. There  was  a Board  of  Health  when  the  aider- 
men  were  summoned  to  meet  as  such.  The  value  of 
the  Board  was  stated  by  Mayor  Fernando  Wood, 
an  expert  in  city  politics,  to  a medical  delegation 
that  requested  the  Mayor  to  call  the  aldermen  as  a 
board  of  health  to  take  measures  against  an  approach- 
ing cholera  epidemic.  The  Mayor  replied,  ‘I  will 
not  call  the  Board,  for  I consider  it  more  dangerous 
to  the  city  than  cholera.’  There  was  the  Health 

[36] 


Has  Our  Present  System  Broken  Down  ? 


Commission,  with  practically  no  well-defined  duties. 
The  ‘city  physician’  attended  the  neglected  cases  of 
sickness  among  the  poor,  a negligible  number.  The 
most  conspicuous  figure  in  the  list  of  sanitary 
officials  was  the  head  of  the  Street-Cleaning  Depart- 
ment, who  had  an  annual  appropriation  of  nearly 
$1,000,000  to  expend  upon  his  political  followers. 
The  sanitary  inspection  of  the  city  was  one  of  his 
duties,  and  for  this  work  he  appointed  scores  of 
‘Health  Wardens,’  who  were  generally  saloon  keepers. 
The  qualification  of  these  sanitary  officials  for  their 
duties  was  tested  by  a legislative  committee.  One 
was  asked  to  define  the  word  ‘ hygiene  ’ and  he  replied 
‘the  vapor  which  rises  from  stagnant  water.’  An- 
other was  asked,  ‘What  do  you  do  when  you  are 
called  to  a case  of  contagious  disease?’  He  replied, 

‘I  go  to  the  house  and  call  the  people  to  the  street, 
where  I give  my  orders,  which  are  to  burn  sulphur; 

I never  go  into  the  house.’”  (Stephen  Smith, “ The  * 
History  of  Public  Health,  1871-1921,”  in  Ravenel, 
“A  Half  Century  of  Public  Health,”  p.  7.) 

In  1872,  there  were  only  three  state  boards  of  health, 
Massachusetts  (1869)  and  California  and  Virginia  (1871). 
In  1876,  there  were  only  twelve  boards  of  health  in  the 
whole  United  States.  Today,  in  every  state  there  is 
a state  board  of  health. 

The  wonderful  achievements  of  public  health  admin- 
istration have  recently  been  summarized  as  follows : 

“The  death  rate  in  New  York  City  in  1869  was  28. 
In  1919  it  was  12.93.  This  means  the  saving  of 

28.000  lives  a year.  There  are  no  national  statistics 
extending  back  fifty  years,  but  in  the  last  twenty 
years  there  has  been  a fall  in  the  death  rate  of  the 
rapidly  expanding  registration  area  of  4.7  per  100,000 
living.  This  is  equivalent  to  the  saving  of  nearly 

400.000  lives  a year.  Typhoid  fever  is  a vanishing 
disease.  The  diarrheal  diseases  caused  four  times 
as  many  deaths  fifty  years  ago  as  now.  Scarlet  fever 
mortality  has  fallen  ninety  per  cent.  Diphtheria 

[37] 


Has  Our  Present  System  Broken  Down? 


has  decreased  nearly  as  much,  and  the  mortality 
from  pulmonary  tuberculosis  has  been  cut  in  two. 
Infant  mortality  in  our  better  cities  has  dropped 
fifty  per  cent.”  (Ravenel,  “A  Half  Century  of 
Public  Health,”  p.  159.) 

RAPID  GROWTH  OF  HEALTH  WORK  IN  THE 
SCHOOLS 

The  responsibility  for  the  health  of  the  whole  nation 
never  can,  except  to  a minor  extent,  be  loaded  on  to  our 
publicf  education  system.  There  are  150,000  doctors 
in  this  country  and  there  will  continue  to  be  a medical 
profession  as  well  as  the  profession  of  teaching  and  these 
doctors  are  more  and  more  emphasizing  the  importance 
of  general  hygiene  and  preventive  measures.  In  recent 
years,  however,  there  has  been  a great  development  of 
health  work  in  the  schools. 

Medical  inspection  of  schools  began  in  the  United 
States  in  Boston  in  1894  as  a result  of  an  outbreak  of 
contagious  disease  in  the  preceding  years.  In  the  first 
decade  of  school  inspection  it  made  slow  progress,  but 
since  then  it  has  been  extremely  rapid.  In  1910  it  had 
been  introduced  into  400  cities.  The  idea  has  rapidly 
gained  ground  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  school  authorities 
to  assist  in  protecting  the  health  of  the  school  children. 
The  injurious  effect  on  the  growing  child  of  unbalanced 
food,  bad  teeth,  bad  tonsils,  adenoids,  the  hookworm, 
and  other  physical  dangers  or  ailments  has  only  within 
a comparatively  few  years  come  to  be  widely  stressed 
by  the  medical  profession,  and  the  medical  profession 
out  of  the  schools  as  well  as  in  the  schools  is  now  hard 
at  work  contributing  to  the  health  and  vigor  of  the 
growing  generation  by  removing  or  minimizing  these 
and  numerous  other  unfavorable  factors. 

The  first  school  nurses  were  employed  in  this  country 
in  1902  in  New  York  City.  This  work  has  been  widely 
developed  throughout  the  cities  of  the  country. 

The  Playground  Movement  is  directly  concerned 

[38] 


Has  Our  Present  System  Broken  Down  ? 


with  the  healthy  development  of  childhood.  It  has 
received  widespread  popular  support  and  millions  of 
dollars  of  public  money  have  been  and  are  still  being 
expended  in  promoting  this  idea. 

IN  1918  THIRTY. NINE  STATES  HAD  PASSED  LAWS  RELATING 
TO  HEALTH  AND  PHYSICAL  EDUCATION 

Since  the  war  the  importance  of  physical  education 
as  a part  of  the  public  educational  system  has  had  a 
rapid  development  throughout  the  nation,  and  in  1918, 
thirty-nine  states  had  legislation  on  health  or  physical 
education,  and  several  states  have  passed  legislation  since 
that  time.  Today  there  are  hundreds  of  public,  semi- 
public, private,  and  philanthropic  agencies  of  national, 
state,  and  local  scope  working  for  the  improvement  of 
the  health  of  the  people,  with  an  annual  expenditure  of 
many  millions  of  dollars. 

Not  only  are  the  states  almost  universally  putting 
into  effect  physical  education  programs  in  the  public 
schools,  but  the  movement  is  also  being  fostered  by  the 
development  of  organized  athletics  and  outdoor  sports 
of  all  kinds,  by  the  rapid  growth  of  the  Boy  Scouts, 
the  Girl  Scouts,  and  many  other  kindred  organizations. 

Inadequacy  of  Rural  Schools 

The  advocates  of  Federal  participation  call  attention 
to  the  inadequacy  of  the  rural  schools  of  the  country  as 
evidence  of  the  failure  of  the  present  education  system. 

Dr.  William  C.  Bagley,  Member  of  the  “Emergency 
Committee”  of  the  National  Education  Association 
said  to  the  Committee  of  Congress  in  1919: 

“In  the  first  place,  the  system  of  rural  education 
is  notoriously  inadequate.  The  proportion  of  illit- 
eracy in  our  rural  districts  is  twice  as  high  as  in  our 
urban  districts.  Consequently  the  problem  of  il- 
literacy is  largely  a problem  of  rural  education.  We 
have  another  significant  fact,  namely,  that  the  na- 
tive-born children  of  the  native-born  population 

[39] 


lias  Our  Present  Systeni  Broken  Down  ? 


are  proportionately  three  times  as  illiterate  as  the 
native-born  children  of  the  foreign-born  population. 
In  other  words,  we  have  done  three  times  as  well  for 
the  children  of  the  immigrants  as  we  have  for  our 
own  children.  The  reason  for  this  is  that  the  immi- 
grants tend  to  congregate  in  the  large  cities  where 
educational  facilities  are  provided,  where  compul- 
sory education  laws  are  generally  enforced,  and 
where  schools  are  generally  attractive.  The  children 
will  go  to  school,  they  are  well  taught,  and  their 
tendency  to  regular  attendance  is  very  much  greater 
than  in  the  country.  We  have  another  fact  that 
was  brought  to  our  attention  strongly  because  of 
the  findings  of  the  Army  tests,  namely,  that  approxi- 
mately one-half  of  the  young  men  drawn  into  the 
Army  camps  had  had  only  six  years  of  schooling  or 
less,  and  if  we  think  of  the  draft  as  forming  a ‘cross 
section’  of  our  population,  this  means  that  one-half 
of  all  of  our  citizens  are  limited  to  six  years’  school- 
ing or  less.  This  gives  us  a conception  of  the  inade- 
quacies of  the  public  school  system  that  we  could  not 
get  in  any  other  way.  I believe  that  the  only  way 
to  correct  this  condition  is  through  some  such  form 
of  national  stimulation  as  is  proposed  in  this  bill.” 
(Record  of  Joint  Hearings,  1919,  p.  146.) 

It  is  stated  that  half  the  children  of  the  country  are 
in  rural  schools,  that  the  average  school  term  of  the 
rural  school  is  about  two  months  less  than  that  of  the 
urban  schools,  that  about  80  per  cent  of  the  rural  schools 
are  one-teacher  schools,  that  rural  school  teachers  seldom 
teach  more  than  one  year  in  the  same  school,  many  of 
them  are  without  even  high  school  training,  and  that 
as  a result  of  the  inefficient  rural  school,  illiteracy  is 
twice  as  great  in  rural  as  in  urban  territory.  It  is  also 
stated  that  the  schools  are  generally  poorly  equipped, 
often  unsanitary,  and  there  is  usually  a lack  of  ade- 
quate supervision.  It  is  also  pointed  out  that  the 
average  salary  of  rural  teachers  is  less  than  that  of  the 
urban  teachers. 


Has  Our  Present  System  Broken  Down  ? 


DISTRICT  SCHOOL’S  PLACE  IN  HISTORY 

However,  despite  its  limited  equipment  and  shorter 
terms  and  the  other  disadvantages  under  which  the 
rural  or  district  school  has  always  been  conducted  as 
compared  with  the  city  school,  the  district  school  has 
played  a notable  part  in  our  national  history. 

“A  reliable  authority  estimates  that  % of  the 
ministers,  % of  the  college  professors  of  the  entire 
country,  % of  the  men  in  authority  in  city  churches, 
and  about  the  same  proportion  of  the  influential 
men  of  affairs  in  the  city  — merchants,  manufac- 
turers, bankers,  lawyers  — were  born  and  reared 
in  rural  regions.  Twenty-six  of  the  Presidents  of 
the  United  States  were  country  boys.”  (Emer- 
gency Commission  of  National  Education  Asso- 
ciation, Bulletin  4,  p.  3.) 

It  is  possible  that  the  professional  educator’s  eyes 
are  so  intently  fixed  on  the  technique  of  the  profession 
that  he  does  not  always  take  into  account  some  of  the 
educational  advantages  of  country  life  which  no  ex- 
penditure of  money  can  ever  bring  to  the  boy  in  New 
York  City,  Chicago,  and  other  cities  of  the  country. 

IMPROVEMENT  IN  RURAL  SCHOOLS  IS  NOW 
WELL  UNDER  WAY 

It  is  true  that  in  the  rapid  educational  progress  of  the 
past  generation  the  rural  schools  have  failed  to  keep 
pace  with  the  advance  in  our  cities,  but  there  is  much 
evidence  that  most  of  the  states  are  making  great  efforts 
to  improve  the  condition  of  their  rural  schools.  They 
are  better  today  in  many  states  than  they  have  ever 
been  in  the  past.  Many  states  are  now  engaged  in 
establishing  ‘ ‘consolidated”  rural  schools  by  combining 
several  of  the  district  schools  and  furnishing  transporta- 
tion to  the  pupils. 

Mrs.  Mary  C.  C.  Bradford,  State  Superintendent  of 
Schools  of  Colorado,  and  former  president  of  the  Na- 


Has  Our  Present  System  Broken  Down? 


tional  Education  Association,  described  these  con- 
solidated rural  schools  before  the  Joint  Senate  and 
House  Committee: 

“One  gentleman  wants  to  know  something  about 
the  consolidated  school.  Consolidation  means  that 
two  or  three  or  more  districts  vote  to  come  together 
and  form  one  district,  with  a large  school  instead 
of  a number  of  small  schools.  By  the  larger  means  of 
taxation  there  is  more  money  to  do  that  with.  It 
is  possible  to  take  the  child  by  transportation  to  the 
school.  In  my  own  state  it  is  necessary  for  the 
majority  — we  will  say  that  five  districts  are  going 
to  be  consolidated  — and  it  must  be  a majority  vote 
of  each  one  of  the  districts  before  they  can  be  con- 
solidated. Then  you  put  together  all  the  resources 
of  these  five  districts  and  you  establish  a central 
school,  to  which  the  children  are  taken  by  transporta- 
tion. We  have  one  in  the  San  Louis  Valley,  which 
has  16  teachers,  pays  its  superintendent  $3,000, 
and  the  minimum  salary  paid  teachers  there  is  $1,500 
a year,  in  that  particular  school.  There  is  a commu- 
nity church  and  a community  farm,  and  there  are 
homes  for  the  superintendent  and  his  family,  and 
there  are  places  of  meeting  for  all. 

“The  Chairman:  How  extensive  is  the  curric- 
ulum in  that  school? 

“Mrs.  Bradford:  It  is  just  as  good  as  it  is 
in  the  Denver  Schools,  and  it  is  modified  in  such 
a way  that  it  meets  the  requirements  of  the  coun- 
try life  and  develops  the  children  for  functioning 
in  country  life.”  (Record  of  Joint  Hearings,  1919, 
p.  46.) 

This  consolidated  school  movement  is  spreading  all 
over  the  country.  It  is  going  especially  strong  in  the 
Middle  West.  Comment  is  made  on  this  progress  in 
the  Report  of  the  United  States  Commissioner  of  Edu- 
cation for  1920,  as  follows: 

[42] 


Has  Our  Present  System  Broken  Down? 


“The  past  year  has  seen  marked  progress  in  the 
matter  of  consolidation.  Probably  the  greatest 
advancement  has  been  made  in  the  State  of  Iowa, 
which  has  averaged  one  consolidation  effected  for 
each  day  of  the  school  year.  The  consolidated  schools 
in  the  United  States  now  number  about  12,000. 
The  greatest  development  has  been  in  the  Middle 
West.  Indiana,  Minnesota,  Iowa,  North  Dakota, 
and  Colorado  are  some  of  the  leading  states  in  this 
movement.”  (U.  S.  Commissioner  of  Education, 
Annual  Report,  1920,  p.  42.) 

Congressman  Towner  himself  has  testified  to  the 
excellent  educational  facilities  provided  by  these  rural 
consolidated  schools.  At  the  hearing  before  the  Com- 
mittee of  Congress  in  1919  he  said: 

“Mr.  Towner:  I would  like  to  know  whether  or 
not.  Dr.  Joyner,  you  would  sanction  this  observa- 
tion I have  made  by  a visit  to  some  of  the  consoli- 
dated schools.  I have  wondered  at  the  wonderful 
efficiency  — ” 

“Dr.  Joyner:  (Interrupting)  Sir? 

“Mr.  Towner:  (Continuing)  And  the  splendid 
opportunities  that  those  schools  afforded.  I would 
rather  have  my  children  educated  in  one  of  those 
modern  consolidated  country  schools  than  to  have 
them  go  to  any  city  school  in  the  country.”  (Record 
of  Joint  Hearings,  1919,  p.  44.) 

STATE  HELP  FOR  RURAL  SCHOOLS 

The  obstacle  to  the  growth  of  this  movement  caused 
by  the  poverty  of  some  of  the  counties  and  other  local 
government  units,  which  is  pointed  out  by  the  critics 
as  perhaps  the  root  of  the  evil,  has  already  been  rem- 
edied in  most  states  by  State  Equalization  Funds. 
To  be  sure,  some  difficulties  are  being  met  in  the  proper 
working  out  of  some  of  these  state  funds  but  they  are 
gradually  being  solved  and  the  march  is  steadily  forward. 


Has  Our  Present  System  Broken  Down? 


BETTER  ANALYSIS  OF  RURAL  SCHOOL  SITUATION 
IS  NEEDED 

In  the  treatment  of  this  subject,  as  in  fact  of  most  of 
the  shortcomings  which  are  pointed  out  by  the  pro- 
ponents of  Federal  participation,  we  are  handicapped 
in  getting  a true  picture  of  the  significance  of  the  facts 
because  the  statements  are  so  general  and  the  problems 
are  not  sufficiently  analyzed.  For  example,  the  con- 
ditions of  the  white  and  negro  schools  are  not  presented 
separately.  As  these  schools  are  separate,  and  negro 
education  is  an  entirely  distinct  educational  problem, 
it  is  essential  that  conditions  be  shown  separately  for 
white  and  negro  schools. 

Shortage  of  Teachers 

It  is  further  stated  by  those  who  attack  our  present 
educational  system  that  there  is  a great  shortage  of 
teachers  and  that  thousands  of  schools  are  closed  be- 
cause of  lack  of  teachers. 

Congressman  Towner,  before  the  Joint  Committee 
of  Congress,  said: 

“A  condition  has  come  about  also  with  regard 
to  our  common  schools  in  the  country  which  calls 
for  most  immediate  and  imperative  action  that  they 
be  remedied.  Thousands  of  schools  in  the  United 
States  have  had  to  be  closed,  or  their  terms  very  ma- 
terially curtailed,  because  of  the  want  of  any  kind  of 
teachers.”  (Record  of  Joint  Hearings,  1919,  p.  11.) 

This  statement  was  apparently  based  on  war  con- 
ditions. During  the  war  there  was  not  only  a shortage 
of  teachers  but  there  was  a shortage  of  almost  every- 
thing that  we  had  been  accustomed  to  consider  essential 
under  peace  conditions.  There  was  a shortage  of  coal, 
there  was  a shortage  of  wheat,  there  was  a shortage  of 
nurses  and  doctors  as  well  as  teachers.  Experience  of 
the  past  three  years  has  seen  the  wartime  shortage  in 
most  instances  transformed  into  a surplus. 

[44] 


Has  Our  Present  System  Broken  Down? 


RAPID  GROWTH  OF  SCHOOLS  OUTSTRIPS  SUPPLY 
OF  TEACHERS 

With  the  rapid  extension  of  the  public  school,  the 
growth  of  the  high  school,  the  growth  of  our  universi- 
ties, the  demand  for  teachers  has  increased  every 
year  by  leaps  and  bounds.  This  has  been  perhaps  an 
inevitable  consequence  of  the  rapid  development  of 
our  state  educational  systems.  In  some  measure  a 
shortage  of  teachers  may  perhaps  be  considered  as  a 
healthy  sign  of  educational  progress.  The  shortage,  as 
we  have  noted,  was  greatly  accentuated  during  the 
war;  many  of  the  men  teachers  went  into  the  service  and 
into  various  branches  of  war  work,  many  of  the  women 
teachers  replaced  the  men  or  went  into  one  or  another 
of  the  various  war  activities  of  the  government.  The 
usual  supply  of  new  teachers  from  the  normal  schools 
and  colleges  was  restricted  for  the  same  reasons. 

SITUATION  BECOMING  NORMAL 

There  has  been  a marked  improvement  in  respect  to 
the  shortage  of  teachers  with  the  return  of  more  normal 
conditions.  We  quote  from  the  Annual  Report  of  the 
United  States  Commissioner  of  Education  speaking  of 
the  conditions  prevalent  in  1920: 

“Although  there  is  a teacher  shortage  without 
question  the  tide  drift  is  setting  back  toward  the 
teaching  profession.  For  some  time  to  come  some 
localities  may  have  difficulty  in  securing  as  many 
teachers  as  they  desire  of  the  type  they  prefer,  but 
already  the  more  favored  localities  are  reporting  a 
surplus.  Furthermore,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  in  all 
periods  of  rapid  expansion,  when  new  activities  are 
springing  up,  calling  without  much  discrimination 
for  help  of  all  kinds  and  in  a position  to  pay  salaries 
considerably  above  those  which  the  more  stabilized 
professions  and  occupations  pay,  it  is  natural  that 
the  latter  should  suffer.  On  the  other  hand,  when 
expansion  ceases  and  contraction  sets  in,  and  when 

[45] 


Has  Our  Present  System  Broken  Down  ? 


new  activities  shut  down,  it  will  always  be  found 
that  the  stabilized  occupations  and  professions  will 
be  swamped  with  persons  seeking  employment.  So, 
although  the  schools  have  suffered  in  this  respect 
during  the  past  five-year  period,  nevertheless  to  the 
mind  which  recognized  that  the  period  of  abnormal 
expansion  would  be  followed  by  a period  of  con- 
traction, the  situation  had  nothing  in  it  to  cause 
alarm.”  (U.  S.  Commissioner  of  Education,  Annual 
Report,  1920,  p.  24.) 

Teachers’  Salaries 

It  is  stated  also  that  the  state  educational  system  has 
failed  because  the  teachers  are  underpaid  and  that  this 
is  largely  responsible  for  the  shortage  of  teachers  already 
referred  to. 

Mr.  Lampson,  Vice  President  of  the  American  Feder- 
ation of  Teachers,  described  the  situation  to  Congress 
as  follows: 

“The  way  to  improve  the  schools  of  America  at 
this  critical  juncture  in  our  history  is  to  raise 
teachers’  salaries. 

“The  average  annual  salary  of  the  teachers  of 
this  country,  inclusive  of  superintendents  and  other 
supervisory  authorities,  is  said  to  be  about  $630, 
or,  measured  in  the  terms  of  the  former  purchasing 
power  of  the  dollar,  about  $350.  The  low  salaries, 
the  high  cost  of  living,  the  strain  and  stress  of  the 
times  have  wrought  havoc  with  the  teaching  per- 
sonnel of  the  public  schools  within  the  States.  The 
teachers  must  be  relieved  from  economic  oppression 
for  the  sake  of  the  children  whom  they  teach  and  the 
people  whom  they  serve. 

“Mr.  Chairman,  of  what  avail  is  the  appropria- 
tion of  $7,500,000  for  the  removal  of  illiteracy  without 
well-paid  and  efficient  teachers  to  do  the  work?  Of 
what  avail  is  the  appropriation  of  $7,500,000  for 
Americanization  without  well-paid  and  efficient 
teachers?  Of  what  avail  is  the  appropriation  of 
$20,000,000  for  physical  education  without  well-paid 


Has  Our  Present  System  Broken  Down  ? 


and  efficient  teachers?  Of  what  avail  is  the  appro- 
priation of  $50,000,000  for  equalizing  the  educa- 
tional opportunities  without  well-paid  and  efficient 
teachers?  There  is  a close  connection  between  pay 
and  the  efficiency  of  teachers.  The  bill  before  your 
committee  is  fundamentally  sound.  It  not  only 
provides  for  the  preparation  of  teachers,  but  also  for 
Federal  aid  in  the  partial  payment  of  teachers’  sal- 
aries. The  country  can  not  afford  to  penalize  its 
teachers.  The  latter  must  be  paid  in  money  and 
public  respect,  those  returns  to  which  the  value  of 
their  services  entitle  them.”  (Record  of  Joint 
Hearings,  1919,  p.  115.) 

We  all  recognize  that  in  many  parts  of  the  country 
teachers  have  been  underpaid.  According  to  the  Bureau 
of  Education  the  average  salary  of  teachers  in  the  pub- 
lic schools  of  the  country  in  1918  was  $635.  (See  Ap- 
pendix E.) 

LOW  SALARIES  OF  NEGRO  TEACHERS  KEEP  DOWN 
AVERAGES  OF  SOUTHERN  STATES 

Here  again  we  find  difficulty  in  getting  a true  picture 
because  of  insufficient  analysis.  The  ten  states  paying 
the  lowest  salaries  are  all  states  with  large  negro  popu- 
lation. In  some  of  the  Southern  States  the  negro  schools 
are  operated  only  for  a few  months  in  the  year  and  the 
compensation  of  the  teachers  is  very  small.  The  annual 
report  of  the  Department  of  Education  in  Alabama  in 
1918  stated  that  the  average  length  of  term  of  negro 
schools  in  that  state  in  that  year  was  104  days.  The 
average  salary  of  the  man  teacher  in  the  negro  schools 
was  $167,  the  woman  teacher  $152.  A bulletin  of  the 
National  Education  Association  refers  to  a similar  case: 

“In  another  state  the  average  monthly  salary 
paid  colored  female  teachers  in  the  elementary 
schools  during  1918  was  only  $26.12,  or  a total  of 
$156.72  for  a year  of  six  months.  This  represents 
an  average  wage  for  these  teachers,  many  of  whom  are 

[47] 


Has  Our  Present  System  Broken  Down  ? 


graduates  of  colored  normal  schools,  of  less  than  one- 
half  what  they  could  earn  without  training  doing 
washing  or  general  housework  in  many  of  the  large 
cities.” 

The  white  schools  of  the  South  also  pay  relatively  low 
salaries  as  they  run  for  shorter  terms  but  the  average  is 
pulled  down  by  the  low  salaries  of  negro  teachers. 

GREAT  IMPROVEMENT  IN  SALARIES  SINCE  1916 

The  increase  in  the  cost  of  living  during  the  war 
brought  distress  to  all  employees  who  were  working  on 
a salary  basis  and  the  teaching  profession  suffered 
severely.  As  a result  of  the  presentation  of  the  situation, 
by  the  teachers  and  their  organizations,  to  the  local  and 
state  authorities,  the  pay  of  a very  large  proportion  of 
the  teachers  has  been  substantially  increased  and  with 
the  decline  in  the  cost  of  living  during  the  past  year 
throughout  the  country,  which  has  amounted  to  more 
than  25  per  cent,  although  the  salaries  of  the  teachers  in 
many  places  are  still  low,  conditions  are  today  much 
better  than  they  were  in  1918  when  the  situation  was 
presented  to  Congress  by  the  National  Education  Asso- 
ciation. The  situation  in  1920  was  thus  reviewed  by 
the  United  States  Commissioner  of  Education: 

“During  the  five-year  period  now  closing  a range 
of  salary  advance  from  a third  to  a half  of  that  paid 
at  the  beginning  of  the  period  will  include  the  great 
bulk  of  the  cities  of  the  United  States.  This  advance 
by  no  means  makes  up  to  the  teachers  the  loss  they 
have  suffered  through  the  decline  in  the  purchasing 
power  of  their  salaries.  Burgess’  study,  indeed, 
shows  that  the  teacher’s  salary  now,  despite  the 
advances  that  have  been  made,  is  actually  less  in 
purchasing  value  than  at  any  other  time  since  the 
Civil  War.  Nevertheless,  serious  efforts  have  been 
made  to  lessen  the  discrepancy.  The  conscience  of 

[48] 


Has  Our  Present  System  Broken  Down  ? 


the  people,  as  never  before,  has  been  touched  respect- 
ing the  work  and  economic  status  of  the  teacher. 
Without  doubt  when  a decline  in  living  costs  sets  in, 
as  it  now  bids  fair  to  do,  and  conditions  become  more 
nearly  normal,  the  teachers  of  the  country  will  find 
that  they  have  made  a distinct  gain,  and  that  their 
status  financially  as  well  as  in  other  important  re- 
spects will  have  been  greatly  bettered.”  (U.  S. 
Commissioner  of  Education,  Annual  Report,  1920, 
p.  23.) 

Poor  Quality  of  Teachers 

The  next  charge  in  the  indictment  is  that  our  teachers 
are  inadequately  prepared  for  the  work,  stated  by  the 
Emergency  Commission  of  the  National  Education 
Association  as  follows: 

“At  the  present  time,  more  than  one-half  of  the 
public  school  teachers  of  the  United  States  are  im- 
mature; they  are  short  lived  in  the  work  of  teaching; 
their  general  education  is  inadequate;  their  profes- 
sional equipment  is  deplorably  meagre.”  (Emer- 
gency Commission  of  National  Education  Associa- 
tion, Bulletin  3,  p.  4.) 

Mr.  Charles  B.  Stillman,  President  American  Feder- 
ation of  Teachers,  said  before  the  Congressional  Com- 
mittee : 

“If  the  present  is  alarming,  let  us  look  at  the 
future.  The  normal  schools  have  been  running  with 
less  than  half  the  customary  enrollment.”  (Record 
of  Joint  Hearings,  1919,  p.  111.) 

It  is  also  stated  that  no  fewer  than  5,000,000  children 
have  teachers  who  have  not  passed  the  age  of  21;  that 
these  teachers  have  had  as  preparation  for  their  work 
only  one,  two,  three  or  four  years’  education  beyond  the 
eighth  grade  of  the  elementary  school. 

Dr.  William  C.  Bagley  thus  described  the  situation  in 
more  detail  as  follows : 


[49] 


Has  Our  Present  System  Broken  Down? 


“ I have  called  your  attention  to  the  more  immature 
and  untrained  half  of  our  teaching  population.  We 
should  not  infer  that  the  better  half  represents  the 
high  level  of  training  and  efficiency  that  the  schools 
of  a great  democracy  demand.  As  a matter  of  fact 
the  proportion  of  well-trained,  mature,  and  relatively 
permanent  teachers  in  the  public-school  service  is 
shamefully  small.  The  rewards  of  teaching  are  so 
meager,  the  recognitions  are  so  few,  the  conditions 
of  work  are  so  arduous,  that  only  a small  number  of 
men  and  women  prepare  themselves  adequately  for 
the  service  and  remain  in  it  as  a life  career.  The 
annual  ‘turnover’  amounts  to  at  least  one-fifth  of 
the  entire  teaching  population;  that  is,  it  is  necessary 
to  secure  each  year  more  than  100,000  new  teachers. 
Our  normal  schools,  with  their  inadequate  facilities, 
can  furnish  only  a small  fraction  of  these  recruits, 
and  those  that  are  furnished  by  these  institutions 
have  usually  had  a hurried  and  consequently  inade- 
quate preparation  for  their  work. 

* * * * * 

“Our  normal  schools  in  general  are  the  most 
penuriously  supported  of  all  of  our  professional 
schools.  Their  instructors  are  notoriously  under- 
paid and  notoriously  over-burdened  with  difficult  and 
exacting  duties.  You  would  all  agree,  I am  sure,  that 
there  is  no  more  responsible  service  than  that  of 
preparing  teachers  for  the  public  schools.  The  nor- 
mal schools  should  be  able  to  secure  and  keep  the 
best  instructors.  Of  all  education  institutions  they 
should  be  in  a position  to  pay  the  highest  salaries 
and  their  service  should  confer  the  highest  distinc- 
tion. In  no  State  of  our  Union  is  normal-school 
work  so  rewarded  or  regarded.”  (Record  of  Joint 
Hearings,  1919,  p.  148.) 

GROWTH  OF  NORMAL  SCHOOLS  SINCE  1900 
The  growth  of  normal  schools,  although  at  a rate 
below  that  of  high  schools  and  colleges,  has  been  note- 
worthy. 


[50] 


Has  Our  Present  System  Broken  Down  ? 


Students 


Graduating 


Expenditure 
State,  City, 


1900  69,551 

1918  110,053 


in  Normal  Courses 


11,359 

24,501 


and  County 

$3,500,000 

15,751,693 


In  eighteen  years  the  number  of  students  graduated 
from  normal  schools  has  more  than  doubled  and  the 
appropriations  for  their  support  increased  more  than 
fourfold.  In  1919  there  were  308  normal  schools  — 172 
state,  34  city,  45  county,  and  57  private  normal  schools. 

OTHER  FACILITIES  FOR  TRAINING  TEACHERS 

With  the  specialized  developments  of  the  high  schools 
in  recent  years  there  has  been  added  in  many  states  a 
teacher-training  course  to  give  training  to  students 
intending  to  teach  in  rural  schools.  In  1919  there  were 
21  states,  with  1,493  of  these  normal  departments  or 
classes,  with  an  attendance  of  27,000. 

There  has  also  been  growing  quite  rapidly  in  some 
states  a new  type  of  institution  of  higher  education  known 
as  the  junior  college  (85  of  them  in  1918).  These  junior 
colleges  are  beginning  also  to  provide  training  for 
teachers. 

Schools  or  Departments  of  Education  are  to  be  found 
not  only  at  most  of  the  state  universities  but  also  in 
many  of  the  older  endowed  universities.  As  long  ago 
as  1914,  the  last  year  for  which  we  have  been  able  to 
obtain  statistics,  the  enrollment  in  departments  of 
education  conducted  by  colleges  and  universities  was 
36,327. 

There  has  also  been  an  enormous  development  of 
summer  schools  for  teachers  during  the  past  decade. 
In  1921  there  were  410  summer  schools  conducted  by 
colleges,  universities,  and  normal  schools  with  enrollment 
of  253,111  students.  (Journal  of  National  Education  Asso- 
ciation, January,  1922,  p.  12.)  Throughout  the  length 
and  breadth  of  the  land  there  is  great  activity  and  many 
institutions  are  working  to  improve  the  professional  edu- 


[51] 


Has  Our  Present  System  Broken  Down? 


cation  of  teachers.  In  no  other  form  of  professional 
education  has  there  been  such  an  increase  in  facilities 
during  recent  years. 

CAUSES  OF  RAPID  TURNOVER  OF  ELEMENTARY 
SCHOOL  TEACHERS 

The  rapid  turnover  among  elementary  school  teachers 
presents  a difficult  problem.  This  turnover  is  stated  by 
the  proponents  of  the  new  legislation  to  be  largely  due 
to  lack  of  proper  appreciation  of  the  dignity  of  the  pro- 
fession on  the  part  of  the  American  public  and  to  the 
low  salaries.  The  low  salary  certainly  has  contributed, 
but  the  main  reason  why  there  is  now  and  always  will 
be  a rapid  turnover  among  the  elementary  school 
teachers  is  that  most  women  marry  and  married  life 
cuts  short  their  professional  careers. 

CONCLUSION 

The  various  subjects  that  we  have  just  reviewed  give 
the  basis  of  the  argument  made  by  the  advocates  of 
the  Sterling-Towner  Bill  that  Federal  aid  is  urgently 
needed  to  protect  the  nation  against  the  “threatened 
breakdown  of  our  present  educational  system.” 

We  find  that  the  picture  of  the  shortcomings  of  our 
educational  system  is  in  many  respects  exaggerated, 
in  other  cases  inadequately  analyzed.  We  find  great 
interest  and  great  activity  on  the  part  of  the  states. 
The  important  question  in  considering  the  criticisms 
of  our  public  school  system  that  really  have  merit,  such 
as  the  condition  of  the  rural  schools,  inadequate  compen- 
sation of  school  teachers,  lack  of  preparation  of  teachers, 
is  to  know  whether  we  are  making  substantial  progress 
on  these  difficult  problems  under  the  present  system. 
Looking  at  the  situation  historically  instead  of  by  the 
“shock ” method,  and  discounting  passing  war  conditions, 
we  find  that  although  we  are  still  far  from  what  we  should 
attain,  enormous  progress  has  been  made,  especially  in 
the  past  decade.  We  think  it  is  clear  that  our  present 


Has  Our  Present  System  Broken  Down? 


educational  system  has  not  failed  and  that  there  is  no 
reason  for  scrapping  it  and  no  adequate  reason  for 
putting  the  Federal  government  into  our  public  schools, 
or  for  appropriating  today  one  hundred  million  dollars 
of  Federal  money. 


[53] 


“POVERTY”  ARGUMENT  FOR  FEDERAL 
PARTICIPATION 

Statement  of  Argument 

The  advocates  of  Federal  participation  claim  that  it 
is  necessary  because  some  of  the  states  are  too  poor  to 
furnish  adequate  schools  for  their  children.  Dr.  J.  Y. 
Joyner,  former  president  of  the  National  Education 
Association,  stated  it  to  the  Committee  of  Congress 
in  1919  as  follows: 

“Giving  that  in  a plain  statement,  Mr.  Chairman, 
it  is  this,  and  it  is  the  point  that  I am  trying  to  get 
to,  that  those  who  should  have  the  most  efficient 
schools,  and  who  have  the  most  deficient  schools 
today,  and  the  greatest  inequality  of  educational 
opportunity  are  those  who  have  the  lowest  amount 
of  wealth  to  provide  schools. 

“Tiie  Chairman:  In  other  words,  the  greater  the 
deficiency  in  the  rural  sections,  the  less  the  oppor- 
tunity and  the  less  wealth. 

“ Senator  Smith  : And  that  has  always  been  true, 
has  it  not? 

“Dr.  Joyner:  Yes,  sir;  but  it  ought  not  to  con- 
tinue here  in  a democracy  founded  on  educational 
opportunity,  please  God. 

“ That  is  the  point  I want  to  come  to  now.  I think 
I have  given  enough  facts  to  show  you  that  the  rural 
people  today,  the  rural  states,  and  the  rural  commu- 
nities, taken  as  a whole,  have  the  most  sadly  inade- 
quate educational  opportunity  of  any  part  of  our 
population;  that  the  census  shows  that  they  have 
the  least  wealth  to  provide  those  educational  oppor- 
tunities and  to  give  through  their  own  efforts  by 
State  and  county  taxation  proper  education  to  their 
children.* 

***** 

* This  statement  may  be  based  on  some  purely  mathematical  average, 
but  it  would  certainly  lead  one  far  astray  both  as  to  the  character  of  the 
schools  and  the  prosperity  of  leading  rural  States  — for  example,  Iowa, 
Kansas,  Minnesota,  Montana,  Nebraska,  Oklahoma,  Texas,  and  Idaho. 


“ Poverty ” Argument 


“If  you  will  think  of  it  for  a moment,  gentlemen, 
you  can  have  no  equality  of  educational  opportunity 
in  a county  that  has  a diversity  of  wealth  and  popu- 
lation in  the  different  communities,  without  the 
larger  unit  of  taxation  and  appropriation,  and  you 
can  have  no  equality  of  educational  opportunity  in 
a given  State,  with  its  great  diversity  of  wealth  and 
population  and  material  resources,  in  the  different 
counties  and  communities,  without  the  larger  unit 
of  taxation  and  appropriation  of  the  whole  State, 
whereby  the  State,  in  cooperation  with  the  counties 
and  communities  brings  all  the  strong  of  the  State  to 
the  help  of  all  the  weak  of  the  State,  and  thus  stimu- 
lates all  the  weak  of  all  the  State  to  help  themselves 
to  the  extent  of  their  ability. 

“Carrying  that  point  a little  further,  gentlemen, 
in  a Nation  like  ours,  with  its  wide  extent  of  terri- 
tory, from  ocean  to  ocean,  from  Arctic  almost  to 
Torrid  Zone,  with  its  great  diversity  of  material 
resources,  with  its  great  diversity  of  wealth,  follow- 
ing the  diversity  of  material  resources,  out  of  which 
wealth  may  be  made,  with  its  great  diversity  of  popu- 
lation, there  can  be  nothing  approaching  equalization 
of  educational  opportunity  for  every  child  in  the 
Nation,  without  cooperation  with  the  States  and  the 
communities,  through  large  Federal  appropriations, 
whereby  all  the  strong  States  and  all  the  strong 
people  of  the  Nation  can  stand  in  cooperation  with 
all  the  strong  of  all  the  States  and  all  the  strong  of 
all  the  communities,  to  help  all  the  weak  of  all  the 
States  and  stimulate  all  the  weak  of  all  the  States  to 
help  themselves  and  provide  equality  of  educational 
opportunity,  irrespective  of  who  the  child  is  or  where 
he  lives.  There  is  the  logic  of  the  situation,  gentle- 
men, as  I see  it.”  (Record  of  Joint  Hearings,  1919, 
p.  42.) 


This  poverty  argument  plays  an  important  part  in 
the  presentation  of  the  case  of  the  advocates  of  Federal 
participation. 


“ Poverty  ” Argument 


STATE  EQUALIZATION  FUNDS 
The  thought,  however,  is  not  always  clear.  The 
statement  is  urged  and  is  unquestionably  true,  that  in 
some  counties  there  is  so  little  taxable  property  that  it 
is  not  possible  by  local  taxation  to  furnish  adequate 
educational  facilities  for  the  children  living  in  the  county. 
This  situation  cannot  be  disputed,  but  in  order  to  meet 
conditions  in  poorer  towns  or  counties  the  states  almost 
universally  have  provided  for  the  equalization  of  educa- 
tional opportunities  by  means  of  state  equalization  funds. 

RELATIVE  WEALTH  OF  STATES  NOT  AN  ISSUE 
The  real  question  with  which  we  are  concerned  is 
whether  taking  the  state  as  the  unit  of  government 
there  are  any  states  which  are  unable  to  furnish  to  their 
school  population  a fair  standard  of  education.  This 
fact  appears  to  be  taken  for  granted  by  the  proponents 
of  the  Sterling-Towner  Bill  except  for  the  statistics 
they  present  indicating  some  of  the  states  have  a larger 
per  capita  wealth  than  other  states.  Nowhere  has  any 
specific  state  been  named  as  being  too  poor  to  furnish 
suitable  educational  facilities  for  its  children,  nor  is 
there  anywhere  a statement  of  what  it  is  that  the  less 
wealthy  states  cannot  afford.  The  burden  is  squarely 
on  the  shoulders  of  those  urging  the  radical  change  in 
governmental  policy  to  show  what  state  or  what  states 
really  lack  the  resources  to  bring  their  educational  system 
up  to  a fair  standard. 

EQUALIZATION  BETWEEN  STATES  BASED  ON  A 
FALSE  ANALOGY 

A false  analogy  has  been  created.  There  is  an  im- 
portant difference  between  equalization  of  the  wealth 
of  the  different  states  for  school  purposes  and  equaliza- 
tion within  a state. 

Those  who  propose  Federal  participation  fail  to  appre- 
ciate this  fundamental  distinction.  Under  our  form  of 
government  the  state  has  a sovereignty  of  its  own.  In 

[56] 


“Poverty”  Argument 


all  activities  which  are  not  specifically  given  into  the 
power  of  the  Federal  Government  by  the  Constitution  the 
state  sovereignty  is  supreme. 

The  analogy  cannot  be  carried  to  the  organization 
within  the  states.  Each  town,  county,  city,  is  the  crea- 
tion of  its  state;  it  receives  its  charter  from  the  state 
and  is  subject  to  the  direction  and  control  of  the  state. 
What  is  proposed  in  this  Federal  participation  is  in 
fact  that  the  state  system  of  government  should  be 
abolished,  that  the  government  should  be  free  to  equalize 
local  taxation  as  between  localities  regardless  of  state 
lines.  Because  the  wealth  of  the  states  is  unequal  (this 
of  course  was  true  at  the  time  the  republic  was  founded 
by  the  federation  of  the  thirteen  original  states)  the  next 
logical  step  will  be  to  establish  an  equalization  tax  for 
public  health,  for  the  administration  of  justice,  for 
police,  for  poor  relief,  and  so  on  and  on,  until  the 
present  character  of  our  government  is  destroyed. 
Equalization  within  the  states  is  a sound  governmental 
procedure,  but  equalization  of  the  states  for  education 
involves  a change  in  the  fundamental  nature  of  our 
government. 

Moreover,  the  state  income  and  the  ability  of  a state 
to  maintain  a satisfactory  public  school  system  depends 
only  in  part  upon  the  property  within  the  taxable  area. 
It  depends  quite  as  much  also  upon  the  willingness  of 
the  people  of  the  state  and  their  legislative  and  executive 
representatives  to  adopt  a modern  system  of  tax  laws, 
to  assess  to  its  real  value  the  property  within  the  state, 
to  collect  a substantial  tax  upon  the  property  thus  as- 
sessed, and  then  to  use  a large  proportion  of  the  income 
thus  derived  for  school  purposes  instead  of  frittering  it 
away  or  using  it  for  other  less  essential  purposes. 

Is  it  not  fundamentally  unsound  for  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment to  go  to  a state  or  local  community  with  a sum 
of  money  and  say:  “We  know  you  could  perfectly  well 
maintain  adequate  schools  just  as  well  as  many  other 


“Poverty”  Argument 


communities  all  over  the  country  are  actually  doing, 
but  as  you  won’t  make  the  sacrifice,  here  is  some  money 
we  have  taken  away  from  these  other  people  for  you  to 
use  for  the  purpose.”  Not  only  is  the  idea  unsound  as 
tending  to  weaken  local  self  government  and  local 
responsibility  for  local  conditions,  but  unless  a Federal 
inspector  stays  on  the  ground  and  bosses  the  job  it  is 
going  to  be  a simple  game  to  take  the  money  and  as 
a result  of  antiquated  tax  laws,  inadequate  assessments, 
careless  collection  of  taxes,  and  turning  state  funds  into 
other  channels,  to  continue  the  same  lack  of  equalization 
of  educational  opportunity  between  this  state  and  some 
other  state  that  existed  before  these  Federal  largesses 
were  set  in  motion. 

EQUALIZATION  REQUIRES  CONTROL  OF 
EXPENDITURE 

If  it  is  proposed  to  equalize  the  wealth  of  the  states 
and  take  away  funds  from  a wealthier  state  to  be  donated 
to  a state  which  it  is  alleged  is  too  poor  to  furnish 
educational  opportunities  for  its  people,  unless  teeth 
are  put  into  this  bill  and  a corps  of  Federal  officials 
created  to  follow  up,  audit,  and  supervise  the  expendi- 
ture of  the  money,  the  government  will  be  guilty  of  noth- 
ing less  than  wanton  spoliation.  This  has  been  recog- 
nized in  the  administration  of  the  state  equalization 
funds.  Inasmuch  as  a state’s  control  of  education  is 
supreme  within  the  limits  of  the  state  the  necessary 
standards  have  been  set  up  and  suitable  inspection 
provided  to  see  that  the  communities  which  receive 
money  from  the  state  properly  expend  it. 

EXAMINATION  OF  POVERTY  ARGUMENT 
Is  there  any  state  too  poor  to  furnish  a fair  standard 
of  educational  opportunity  to  its  children?  No  state 
has  as  yet  established  the  fact  that  it  cannot  provide  a 
good  common  school  education  for  all  its  children  and 
before  we  proceed  to  radically  alter  the  theory  and 

[58] 


66 Poverty’7  Argument 


working  of  our  government  we  ought  to  insist  upon  a 
clear  and  accurate  statement  of  the  economic  facts  from 
the  states  which  desire  to  make  the  claim.  No  state  and 
no  authorized  state  official  appeared  at  the  hearing  before 
the  Joint  Senate  and  House  Committee  to  even  make  a 
perfunctory  request  for  this  bill  and  much  less  was  there 
an  attempt  made  by  any  person  whatever  to  present 
facts  which  laid  the  slightest  basis  for  such  a claim.  The 
wealth  statistics  presented  to  Congress  by  the  advocates 
of  the  bill  show  that  the  least  wealthy  states  were  all 
Southern  States.  But  there  is  an  abundance  of  evidence 
from  official  state  reports  within  these  very  states  that 
the  real  difficulty  is  not  poverty  but  that  their  systems 
of  assessment  and  of  taxation  are  poorly  administered 
and  of  an  antiquated  and  ineffective  character. 

RESULTS  OF  TAX  REFORM  IN  KENTUCKY 
For  example,  the  state  of  Kentucky,  one  of  the  eight 
poorest  states,  according  to  the  figures  given  Congress 
recently  put  into  effect  a revised  taxation  system.  The 
result  is  given  in  the  following  quotation  from  a state- 
ment of  Hon.  M.  M.  Logan,  Chairman  State  Tax  Com- 
mission of  Kentucky: 

“Our  new  tax  laws  have  proved  wonderfully  suc- 
cessful. The  county  assessors  last  year  (1917) 
turned  in  a total  assessment  of  $922,000,000  including 
bank  deposits.  This  year  the  assessment  turned  in 
by  the  county  assessors  under  direction  of  the  State 
Tax  Commission  will  reach  $1,400,000,000  or  a total 
of  $1,579,000,000  which  shows  a net  gain  in  one  year 
of  $657,000,000  in  total  property  listed  for  assessment. 
Exclusive  of  bank  deposits,  our  total  intangibles  last 
year  were  only  $67,000,000.  This  year,  exclusive 
of  bank  deposits,  intangibles  will  probably  reach 
$260,000,000.” 

Again  Mr.  Logan  says: 

“I  think  the  best  feature  of  our  law  is  the  small 
rate  on  intangibles  as  well  as  the  small  rates  on 

[59] 


“Poverty”  Argument 


manufacturing  machinery  and  raw  materials.  I 
believe  we  have  gone  a long  way  towards  solving  the 
different  and  perplexing  questions  of  taxation.  Not- 
withstanding our  tax  rate  was  reduced  15^  on  the 
hundred  dollars  of  assessed  valuations  for  state  pur- 
poses, which  was  equivalent  to  a reduction  of  two 
million  dollars,  we  will  collect  a good  deal  more 
money  this  year  under  the  new  law  than  we  col- 
lected last  year.  It  appears  now  that  including  license 
taxes  imposed  at  the  special  session  in  1917,  we  will 
have  about  two  million  dollars  more  revenue  than 
we  did  last  year.”  (Report  of  Special  Tax  Commis- 
sion of  Georgia,  1919,  p.  27.) 

RESULTS  OF  TAX  REFORM  IN  NORTH  CAROLINA 
North  Carolina,  also  described  as  one  of  the  less 
wealthy  states,  put  into  effect  a new  system  of  taxation 
in  1920  with  the  following  results,  as  described  by  the 
Special  Tax  Commission  of  South  Carolina,  which  inves- 
tigated the  situation  in  North  Carolina  and  reported  as 
follows : 

“This  act  was  ratified  on  March  11,  1919,  and 
by  August,  1920,  the  work  of  listing  all  property  and 
revaluing  the  same  at  its  full  money  value  was  com- 
pleted. A representative  of  your  committee  visited 
Raleigh  on  September  16,  1920,  and  went  over  the 
situation  fully  with  the  North  Carolina  Tax  Com- 
mission. From  the  facts  furnished  it  appears  that 
the  results  of  this  revaluation  were  as  follows : 

“1.  The  taxable  property  of  the  state  was  raised 
from  $1,099,120,389  to  $3,158,480,072,  or  practi- 
cally trebled. 

“2.  The  general  levy  for  State,  Pension,  School  and 
County  purposes  was  reduced  from  14^4  mills  to 
4.98  mills.  (This  was  the  reduction  figured  by  the 
Tax  Commissioner.  When  the  Legislature  met  in 
Special  Session,  it  removed  entirely  what  is  called 
the  State  Tax,  but  this  does  not  include  school  taxes, 
the  pension  fund,  etc.,  as  it  does  in  this  State,  South 
Carolina.) 


[60] 


“Poverty”  Argument 


“3.  One  million  acres  of  untaxed  lands  were  dis- 
covered and  placed  on  the  tax  books. 

“ 4.  The  amount  of  intangible  property  classified  as 
solvent  credits  was  increased  from  $90,055,893  to 
$214,546,231  or  not  quite  23^  times. 

“5.  Assessed  value  of  railroads  was  increased  from 
$125,417,618  to  $250,587,158  or  approximately 
doubled. 

“6.  The  real  estate  assessment  made  in  1915  was 
increased  from  $506,808,394  to  $2,006,124,997  or 
very  nearly  quadrupled. 

“ 7.  Personal  property  was  increased  from 
$426,062,907  assessed  in  1918  to  $807,866,443  or 
not  quite  doubled. 

“8.  Cotton  mills  were  increased  from  $58,266,591 
to  $205,581,304  or  about  3 x/l  times. 

“ 9.  Over  20,000  taxable  polls  were  discovered  and 
placed  on  tax  books. 

“10.  The  cost  of  revaluation  to  the  State  was 
about  $130,000.” 

(Report  of  Special  Tax  Commission  of  South 
Carolina,  1920,  p.  65.) 

NEED  OF  TAX  REFORM  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA  DESCRIBED 
BY  SPECIAL  TAX  COMMISSION  OF  THAT  STATE 

As  a further  indication  that  the  root  of  the  difficulty 
in  these  states  is  the  nature  and  to  a minor  degree  the 
administration  of  the  tax  laws,  we  quote  from  the  Special 
Tax  Commission  of  the  State  of  South  Carolina  describ- 
ing the  situation  in  that  state  as  late  as  1920.  A portion 
of  the  resolution  of  the  State  Assembly  creating  the 
commission  reads  as  follows : 

(Report  of  Joint  Special  Committee  on  Revenue 
and  Taxation  appointed  by  the  South  Carolina  Gen- 
eral Assembly  Session  of  1920;  submitted  to  the 
Regular  Session  of  1921.) 

“Whereas,  it  is  a matter  of  common  knowledge 
that  a considerable  proportion  of  the  taxable  prop- 
erty of  the  State  is  now  escaping  taxation,  and  that 

[61] 


“ Poverty  ” Argument 


methods  and  sources  of  raising  revenue  now  generally 
resorted  to  by  other  States  are  not  in  use  in  this 
State  . . (Page  6.) 

The  report  also  states: 

“But,  having  disposed  of  one  disturbing  issue, 
there  arose  another  equally  embarrassing  alternative. 
That  was  a choice  between  leaving  severely  alone  and 
thereby  tacitly  approving,  a tax  system  that  had  led 
to  the  imposition  of  an  excessively  high  tax  rate  upon 
property,  or  taking  some  action  toward  challenging 
the  right  of  such  a system  longer  to  exist  and  function 
in  its  present  form.  Lined  up  behind  the  policy  of 
‘masterly  inactivity’  were  a number  of  potent  in- 
fluences — the  force  of  inertia,  the  example  of  pre- 
ceding legislatures,  the  anaesthesia  of  flush  times, 
and  (more  formidable  than  all  others)  the  well- 
founded  belief  that  ‘monkeying  with  taxes’  in  any 
shape  or  form  is  dangerous  to  the  legislators’  political 
health.  On  the  other  hand,  were  the  considerations 
that  for  many  years  past  the  State  had  been,  to  the 
knowledge  of  all  men,  under  an  outlaw  tax  system; 
that  the  system  itself  in  its  actual  legal  form  and  sub- 
stance, was  under  the  condemnation  of  the  best  mod- 
ern opinion  of  political  economists  and  practical  tax 
administrators;  that  if  the  States  established  insti- 
tutions and  the  governmental  activities  to  which 
it  was  already  committed  were  to  keep  pace  with  the 
natural  growth  and  development  of  the  State  the 
need  for  increased  revenues  would  grow  more  and 
more  acute,  and  — most  potent  of  all  considerations 
— that  the  general  property  tax  as  a producer  of 
revenue  had  about  reached  the  breaking  point.” 
(Page  5.) 

“That  a vast  amount  of  the  [taxable  property  of 
the  State  is  not  upon  the  tax  books  at  all  is  not  only 
well  known,  but  is  acquiesced  in  and  openly  justified 
by  the  majority  of  our  citizens.  All  of  which  can 
mean  but  one  thing  — that  the  operation  of  the  tax 
system  of  South  Carolina  is  in  point  of  fact  as  much 

[62] 


“ Poverty  ” Argument 


of  an  outlaw  business  as  the  gentle  art  of  cracking 
safes  or  of  distilling  moonshine  whiskey.”  (Page  25.) 

“It  would  therefore  seem  to  be  a conservative  esti- 
mate to  place  the  value  of  all  taxable  intangible  prop- 
erty in  South  Carolina  now  escaping  taxation,  at  not 
less  than  $300,000,000  which  is  more  than  70  per  cent 
of  the  present  assessed  value  of  all  property  of  every 
character  in  the  State.”  (Page  43.) 

“In  directing  especial  attention  to  the  escape  of 
this  form  of  property  from  the  tax  rolls,  the  Commit- 
tee has  not  been  inadvertent  to  the  fact  that  much 
real  estate  is  also  escaping.  The  Committee  has 
reason  to  believe  that  there  are  thousands  of  acres  of 
land  outside  of  the  towns  and  cities  that  are  not  upon 
the  tax  books.  The  U.  S.  Census  Bureau  (1912) 
gives  the  land  area  of  South  Carolina  as  19,516,800 
acres.  The  acreage  returned  for  taxation  in  1919  for 
all  lands  outside  of  cities  and  towns  was  18,693,519. 
This  leaves  823,281  acres  to  be  accounted  for  as  town 
lots.  Even  in  the  cities,  where  the  listing  and  assess- 
ment of  real  estate  would  seem  to  be  comparatively 
easy,  improved  lots  have  been  known  to  escape  taxa- 
tion for  years.  In  1915  the  Tax  Commission  of  this 
State  had  surveys  made  of  five  of  the  city  blocks  in 
Columbia  and  found  as  to  three  of  them  that  two- 
thirds  of  the  land  and  one-half  of  the  buildings  in  one 
block  were  not  returned  for  taxation;  in  another 
block  twenty-three-fortieths  (2%o)  or  over  half  of  the 
land  and  half  of  the  buildings  were  escaping  taxa- 
tion; in  the  third  block,  23  front  feet,  valued  at 
$460,000  and  a lot  and  small  building  valued  at  $600 
escaped  taxation.”  (Page  35.) 

This  commission  in  summing  up  its  deductions  begins 
with  the  following  two  conclusions : 

“From  the  foregoing  broad  outline  of  the  State’s 
financial  affairs  the  following  would  seem  to  be  legiti- 
mate deductions: 

“1.  That  the  State  of  South  Carolina  is  not  a 
pauper  colony. 

[63] 


“ Poverty  ” Argument 


“2.  That  a State  which  is  spending  approximately 
2%  times  less  than  the  average  American  Com- 
monwealth for  State  purposes  is  probably  doing  less 
for  its  people  through  governmental  agencies  than 
they  are  entitled  to.”  (Page  16.) 

TAXATION  SITUATION  IN  GEORGIA 

In  Georgia  a Special  Tax  Commission  reported  in 
1919  and  called  attention  to  the  following  facts: 

All  Property 

Valuation  Assessment  in  Georgia 

“1912  2,382,600,866  842,358,342  36% 

1918  4,258,919,048  1,079,261,333  2 5%” 

(Page  4.) 

It  is  not  surprising  that  the  tax  rates  may  have  seemed 
excessively  high  when  the  basis  of  valuation  was  actually 
reduced  on  the  average  from  36  per  cent  of  true  value 
in  1912  to  25  per  cent  of  true  value  in  1918. 

The  Georgia  Commission  further  called  the  attention 
of  its  legislature  to  the  following  facts : 

“1916 

Average  per  Capita  State  Tax  U.  S.  . . . $5.09 


So.  Atlantic  States 3.26 

Per  Capita  State  Tax  Georgia 2.55 


Only  five  states  pay  less.”  (Page  28.) 

TAXATION  SITUATION  IN  TENNESSEE 

In  Tennessee  the  situation  is  thus  described  by  a 
Special  Tax  Commission  in  1915: 

“It  is  not  surprising  therefore  that  despite  the 
advances  in  the  values  of  land  all  over  the  State 
which  are  well  known  to  all  those  who  have  investi- 
gated the  subject  the  tax  aggregate  has  grown  very 
slowly  most  of  the  increases,  as  shown  being  in  the 
assessments  of  city  property.  In  fact  the  Comp- 
troller’s report  for  1914  shows  that  31  counties  re- 
duced their  average  acreage  assessment  between 
1913  and  1914  and  that  there  were  actually  six 

[64] 


“ Poverty  ” Argument 


counties  which  were  assessed  at  less  per  acre  on 
acreage  property  in  1914  than  in  1879.  In  the  ten 
years  between  1904  and  1914  the  total  assessments 
of  the  State  increased  from  $429,767,708  to  $672,- 
754,691  or  56.5  per  cent.  This  is  not  an  increase 
commensurate  with  the  rapid  growth  of  wealth. 
According  to  the  Federal  census  the  capital  invested 
in  manufactures  in  Tennessee  was  $63,141,000  in 
1899  and  $167,924,000  in  1909,  an  increase  of  166 
per  cent.  The  value  of  farm  property  in  1900  was 
$341,202,025  and  in  1910  $612,520,836,  an  increase 
of  79  per  cent.  The  average  acreage  assessment 
now  is  less  than  $9. 

“These  figures  speak  for  themselves.  Our  prop- 
erty every  year  is  assessed  on  a lower  basis  compared 
to  value. 

“In  addition,  statements  of  assessors  before  this 
committee  show  that  in  many  cases  throughout  the 
State  the  bases  of  assessment  in  counties  adjoining  one 
another  vary  between  25  per  cent  and  60  per  cent  of 
the  actual  value  of  the  property  in  those  counties. 
The  game  of  dodging  a fair  share  of  State  taxes  is  be- 
ing played  all  over  the  State  just  as  some  individuals 
dodge  taxes  in  their  individual  assessment,  and  such 
a thing  as  actual  cash-value  assessments  in  accord- 
ance with  the  assessment  law  of  1907  is  practically 
unknown  anywhere.  In  fact  numerous  assessors 
testified  that  they  dared  not  assess  property  at  its 
actual  cash -value;  for,  if  they  did,  they  were  sure 
to  lose  their  official  positions  at  the  next  election  — 
if,  indeed,  they  were  not  before  that  time  run  out 
of  the  county. 

“We  are  unable  to  furnish  statistics  as  to  the 
actual  value  of  property  in  Tennessee  as  compared 
with  the  assessment,  but  from  those  collected  by  its 
agents  the  Federal  Census  Bureau  estimates  that  the 
assessed  value  of  property  is  about  38  per  cent  of  the 
actual  value  of  property  in  the  State.  We  are  in- 
clined to  the  belief,  however,  from  admissions  made 
by  assessors  and  tax  payers  who  have  come  before 

[65] 


“ Poverty  ” Argument 


this  committee  that  this  estimate  is  much  too  high.” 
(Report  of  Special  Tax  Commission  of  Tennessee, 

pp.  10,  11.) 

“ Tennessee  is  now  one  of  the  most  cheaply  gov- 
erned states  in  the  Union.  Only  four  other  states, 
all  Southern,  imposed  a lighter  burden  on  their  tax 
payers  as  shown  by  per  capita  receipts  and  expend- 
itures. These  in  Tennessee  now  average  only  about 
$2  per  capita  annually,  which  is  about  one-half  the 
average  for  the  United  States  and  considerably  less 
than  the  average  in  Southern  States. 

“All  the  states  bordering  Tennessee  except  North 
Carolina  and  Mississippi  expend  larger  sums  per 
capita.  Nevertheless,  within  10  years  our  receipts 
increased  approximately  from  $2,600,000  to  $4,- 
600,000,  the  increase  being  constant  from  year  to 
year  showing  the  prosperity  of  the  State  and  our 
expenses  have  increased  in  proportion.  When  we 
consider  that  in  1904  the  State  paid  out  for  charities, 
schools  and  pensions  the  sum  of  $989,609.44  and  in 
1914  paid  out  $3,075,142.45  for  the  same  purposes 
we  see  how  the  heart  of  our  State  has  throbbed  in 
unison  with  the  great  movements  affecting  this 
nation.  Now  are  we  going  to  escape  our  obligations 
to  do  more  for  our  heroes  of  the  past,  for  our  youth 
the  hope  of  the  future,  and  for  the  unfortunates  to 
whom  we  wish  again  to  open  the  door  of  opportunity. 
And  also  we  are  under  obligation  to  do  much  more 
than  we  have  done  for  good  roads  and  in  aid  of 
agriculture,  mining,  forestry  and  for  other  good 
purposes.”  (Page  34.) 

TAXATION  SITUATION  IN  MISSISSIPPI 
In  Mississippi  the  situation  is  similar.  (See  report  of 
Senate  and  House  Committee  on  State  Revenue  System 
and  Fiscal  Affairs  submitted  to  the  Mississippi  Legis- 
lature in  1918.) 

“ Mississippi’s  antiquated  revenue  system  must  be 
reformed  so  as  to  establish  an  equitable  and  adequate 
system  for  raising  the  states’  income  as  well  as  a 

[66] 


“Poverty”  Argument 


logical  and  economical  method  of  disbursing  public 
funds.”  (Page  9.) 

“Deficits  have  been  further  increased  by  a reduc- 
tion in  some  sources  of  state  revenue,  despite  the 
fact  that  the  past  few  years  have  shown  great  devel- 
opment in  the  material  prosperity  of  our  people. 
For  example,  there  was  a reduction  of  $20,781,736 
in  the  total  Assessed  Valuation  in  1915  from  what 
it  was  in  1914.  In  1915  there  were  127,242  more 
acres  of  land  in  cultivation  as  appears  from  the 
assessment  rolls  than  in  1913  and  yet  the  assessed 
valuation  of  the  cultivated  lands  in  1915  with  this 
increased  acreage  was  $1,512,255  less  than  in  1913. 
And  there  was  a decrease  of  $5,000,000  in  the  valua- 
tion of  wild  lands  also.  These  figures  are  significantly 
suggestive.  Second : Our  system  of  taxation  was  not 
equitable.  More  deplorable  and  intricate  than  the 
inadequacy  of  our  system  was  its  inequity.  Under  it 
a tax  furnishing  an  insufficient  income  was  a greater 
burden  on  a portion  of  our  people  than  a sufficient 
tax  equitably  distributed  would  have  been.  It  was 
to  be  regretted  that  because  of  variations  in  land 
assessments  this  phase  of  the  question  has  come  to 
be  regarded  by  many  as  a sectional  one.  This  view 
was  erroneous  for  some  of  the  greatest  inequalities 
existed  between  values  in  adjoining  counties. 

“Land  for  instance  in  Jones  County  paid  to  the 
State  a tax  of  5^  per  acre;  in  Jasper  County  which 
is  adjacent  the  same  character  of  land  paid  2.7^  per 
acre;  Harrison  County  paid  21.9  per  acre;  Jackson 
County  adjacent  and  of  the  same  character  of  land 
paid  2.7 ^ per  acre;  Lee  County  paid  4.1^  per  acre; 
Monroe  adjacent,  paid  2.4  per  acre;  Covington 
County  paid  4.9^  per  acre  while  Franklin  County 
paid  1.9^  per  acre.  These  figures  are  only  illustra- 
tive of  the  general  condition.  These  variations 
were  due  to  the  fact  that  we  have  80  different 
Boards  of  Supervisors,  each  having  supreme  control 
over  the  assessment  rolls  of  its  particular  county. 
Valuations  were  reduced,  local  levies  increased,  and 

[67J 


“Poverty”  Argument 


the  state  deprived  of  its  legitimate  and  necessary 
income. 

“The  tax  payer  was  supposed  to  list  his  property 
at  its  actual  value  as  specified  by  the  State  Consti- 
tution and  not  purposely  to  reduce  his  assessment 
because  his  neighbors  had  reduced  theirs.  Yet  many 
citizens  who  are  the  soul  of  honor  in  their  general 
dealings  with  their  fellow  men,  felt  that  they  were 
compelled  to  do  that  very  thing.  Because  his  neigh- 
bors never  listed  their  property  at  its  actual  value 
the  levies  were  two  or  three  times  higher  than  they 
would  be  if  the  law  were  complied  with  and  there- 
fore each  tax  payer  felt  that  he  could  ill  afford  to  be 
an  exception  by  listing  his  property  at  full  value. 

“The  practise  of  undervaluation  resulted  in  high 
levies  and  high  levies  drove  certain  classes  of  prop- 
erty which  might  be  easily  concealed  from  the  assess- 
ment rolls.  In  many  districts  of  this  State  the  rate 
of  taxation  was  as  high  as  45  mills  and  sometimes 
even  higher.  The  man  who  lends  money  at  8 per  cent 
and  pays  4 Per  cent  taxes  feels  that  he  is  not  being 
justly  dealt  with  by  his  Government  which  is  thereby 
exacting  of  him  an  income  tax  of  more  than  50  per 
cent  on  gross  earnings.  Money  is  worth  more  than 
6 per  cent  in  Mississippi  when  loaned  in  small  sums 
and  the  small  borrower  has  to  pay  more  for  it  if  he 
gets  it.  As  a result  subterfuges  for  evading  taxation 
were  resorted  to.  The  borrower  paid  the  market  value 
of  the  money  he  borrowed,  the  State  lost  the  revenue 
and  the  people  became  accustomed  and  even  recon- 
ciled to  tax  dodging.  Because  of  high  levies  result- 
ing from  under  valuation  we  received  practically  no 
income  from  taxation  on  intangible  personalty,  that 
class  of  property  which,  with  the  industrial  and 
commercial  progress  of  recent  years  has  increased  in 
amount  and  value  as  has  no  other.”  (Page  10.) 

CONCLUSION 

In  the  face  of  these  statements  not  from  outsiders 
but  from  the  public  officials  of  the  states  towards  which 

[68] 


“ Poverty  ” Argument 


those  urging  this  measure  seem  to  point  the  finger  in 
their  poverty  argument,  it  seems  clear  the  proponents 
should  come  forward  with  more  and  better  and  more 
specific  proof  as  to  just  where  the  states  are  which  cannot 
maintain  a good  sound  public  school  system.  Let  us 
have  their  names.  They  will  find  themselves  among 
friends.  If  they  need  help  we  shall  all  be  glad  to  try  to 
find  some  sound  way  to  do  it.  But  this  present  measure, 
as  will  be  pointed  out  in  more  detail  later,  simply  throws 
a hundred  million  dollars  round  the  country  to  the  rich 
and  the  less  rich  alike  in  the  vague  hope  that  somewhere 
some  small  fraction  of  it  will  fall  into  the  lap  of  some  one 
needing  it. 

Meanwhile  the  gratifying  truth  is  that  practically 
every  one  of  the  states,  on  whose  behalf  the  claim  is 
apparently  being  put  forward,  is  proceeding  to  modernize 
its  taxation  laws  and  practices  and  to  successfully  dis- 
charge on  its  own  account  this  function  of  local  self- 
government. 

PUBLIC  INTEREST  MORE  IMPORTANT  THAN  MONEY 
The  advocates  of  the  bill  have  overestimated  the 
relative  importance  of  public  interest  and  money.  Pub- 
lic interest  never  fails  to  produce  the  needed  funds.  But 
the  donation  of  Federal  money  is  not  always  successful 
in  stimulating  public  interest.  It  is  more  likely  to  kill 
responsibility  and  destroy  initiative. 

EXAMPLE  OF  MISSISSIPPI 

The  following  example  from  Mississippi,  recently 
described  by  Charles  Riborg  Mann,  well  illustrates  that 
“where  there  ’s  a will  there ’s  a way.” 

“Mississippi  has  been  held  up  by  the  proponents 
of  Federal  subsidies  for  education  as  a state  which 
has  so  little  taxable  wealth  that  it  cannot  itself  raise 
enough  money  for  the  proper  support  of  schools. 
Therefore  — so  the  argument  runs  — it  is  neces- 

[69] 


“ Poverty”  Argument 


sary  to  call  in  the  Federal  government  to  collect 
taxes  from  New  York  and  distribute  subsidies  in 
Mississippi  to  help  the  inhabitants  there  in  estab- 
lishing their  school  system. 

“It  happens  that  in  Mississippi  in  1910  a man 
with  creative  imagination  visited  the  state  and  saw 
what  was  needed  to  create  better  schools.  Having 
some  private  funds  at  his  disposal,  he  employed 
another  man  with  a creative  idea  to  spend  his  time 
among  the  people  of  Mississippi  showing  them  how 
they  could  improve  their  conditions  by  organizing 
corn  clubs  and  canning  clubs  and  consolidated 
schools.  The  work  prospered.  The  legislature 
passed  the  necessary  statutes  authorizing  the  es- 
tablishment of  consolidated  schools.  These  schools 
have  now  grown  rapidly  until  there  are  525  of  them, 
each  replacing  from  two  to  seven  or  eight  small  one- 
room  schools. 

“The  course  of  study  in  consolidated  schools  is 
not  the  conventional  course  given  in  most  public 
schools;  it  is  aimed  at  teaching  the  children  to  be 
productive  citizens.  When  the  corn  clubs  demon- 
strated that  it  is  possible  to  raise  130  bushels  of  corn 
to  an  acre,  and  the  schools  showed  how  to  prepare 
the  land  for  other  crops  than  cotton,  the  adults  of 
the  district  became  interested  and  sought  further 
information.  The  result  has  been  that  the  produc- 
tivity of  the  communities  about  the  consolidated 
schools  has  increased,  their  ready  money  has  multi- 
plied, and  their  bank  credit  has  become  more  stable. 
They  have  taxed  themselves  heavily  to  support  these 
schools,  and  the  schools  have  become  the  centre 
of  social  and  uplift  work  for  their  respective  com- 
munities. 

“All  of  this  work  in  Mississippi  was  done  by  the 
people  themselves,  without  Federal  subsidies,  be- 
cause of  the  skilful  missionary  work  of  one  man  with 
a dynamic  idea.  When  in  1917  the  Smith-Hughes 
law  was  passed  and  Federal  subsidies  were  available, 
these  contributed  somewhat  to  the  further  develop- 

[70] 


“Poverty”  Argument 


ment  of  the  schools;  but  at  present  only  30  of  the 
525  consolidated  schools  are  receiving  aid  from  the 
Federal  grant. 

“This  experience  of  Mississippi  indicates  that 
even  in  communities  that  seem  to  have  low  taxable 
wealth,  there  is  latent  energy  which  when  aroused 
enables  them  to  achieve  great  results  for  themselves. 

It  indicates  that  when  a school  delivers  goods  the 
people  want,  the  people  are  ready  to  pay  the  price. 
The  financial  difficulties  of  schools  at  the  present 
time  are  not  due  to  lack  of  money  among  the  people.” 
(Charles  Riborg  Mann,  “Federal  Organization  for 
Education,”  in  Educational  Review,  February,  1923, 
pp.  104  ff.) 

EXAMPLE  OF  KENTUCKY 

Another  striking  illustration  of  what  an  awakened 
public  opinion  can  accomplish  is  shown  by  the  work 
already  done  in  Kentucky  in  removing  illiteracy  under 
the  leadership  of  Mrs.  Cora  Wilson  Stewart.  We  quote 
from  her  testimony  before  the  Joint  Committee  of  Con- 
gress : 

“It  has  been  my  privilege  for  the  past  eight  years 
to  deal  exclusively  with  adult  illiterates  in  my  own 
and  other  States  and  from  that  experience  I have 
found  how  eager  these  people  are  to  learn,  how 
grateful  they  are  for  a chance,  and  how  rapidly  they 
progress.  In  1911  we  started  the  movement  to 
eradicate  illiteracy  in  one  county  in  the  State  of 
Kentucky.  Later  it  developed  into  a State-wide 
movement  to  eradicate  illiteracy  before  1920.  Other 
States  took  up  the  plan  and  began  to  campaign 
against  illiteracy  until  now  almost  every  State  in 
the  Union  is  making  an  attempt  to  stamp  illiteracy 
out  of  the  Commonwealth.  In  some  States  this 
work  is  being  done  under  the  direction  of  illiteracy 
commissions;  in  some,  under  State  departments  of 
education;  in  others,  under  volunteer  organizations. 
The  State  that  is  not  doing  something  to  relieve  adult 
illiterates  is  the  exception. 

[71] 


‘ ‘ Poverty  ’ * A rgument 


“Senator  Walsh  has  asked  the  question  whether 
or  not  Kentucky  has  appropriated  money  for  the 
removal  of  illiteracy  from  the  State.  Ten  thousand 
dollars  was  first  appropriated  for  the  purpose,  and 
later  the  interest  was  so  increased  that  the  legislature 
appropriated  $75,000,  making  $85,000  in  all  that 
Kentucky  has  appropriated  for  the  relief  of  adult 
illiterates. 

“I  am  sure  that  you  are  more  interested  in  the 
results  of  the  campaign  to  eradicate  illiteracy  than 
anything  else.  The  test  of  any  educational  system 
is  its  results.  In  Oklahoma,  5,000  adults  were 
taught  to  read  and  write  in  the  moonlight  schools 
in  one  year;  in  North  Carolina,  10,000  were  taught 
in  the  year  of  1915,  and  the  work  continues  with 
increasing  success.  In  New  Mexico,  they  have 
taught  45,000  to  read  and  write  since  1915,  says 
the  State  superintendent  of  public  instruction.  You 
will  agree  with  me,  I am  sure,  that  the  State  in- 
spector and  examiner  of  our  State  is  an  official  quali- 
fied to  make  a report.  In  the  State  of  Kentucky  it 
is  his  duty  to  report  on  the  various  commissions  and 
departments  and  to  show  what  they  have  and  what 
they  have  not  done.  In  the  report  of  this  official  to 
the  governor  of  Kentucky  in  December,  1918,  he 
stated  that  after  examining  the  official  reports  of 
school  superintendents  and  the  sworn  reports  of 
teachers,  he  found  that  in  Kentucky  100,000  persons 
had  been  taught  to  read  and  write.  This  is  a demon- 
stration of  what  has  been  done  in  one  State  in  re- 
deeming men  and  women  from  illiteracy.”  (Record 
of  Joint  Hearings,  1919, pp.  102-104.) 


DESCRIPTION  OF  STERLING-TOWNER 

BILL 


The  way  is  now  cleared  for  a more  detailed  discussion 
of  the  Sterling-Towner  Bill. 

The  bill  appropriates  $100,000,000,  divided  as  follows: 
$7,500,000  for  the  removal  of  illiteracy;  $7,500,000  for 
Americanization;  $20,000,000  for  physical  education; 
$15,000,000  for  the  preparation  of  public  school  teachers, 
and  $50,000,000  for  equalizing  educational  opportunities 
in  the  states. 

The  basis  of  apportionment  follows:  The  $7,500,000 
for  the  removal  of  illiteracy  is  to  be  apportioned  to  the 
states  in  the  proportions  which  their  illiterate  population 
of  fourteen  years  or  over,  not  including  foreign-born 
illiterates,  bears  to  the  total  illiterate  population  of  the 
United  States.  The  $7,500,000  for  Americanization  is 
to  be  apportioned  in  the  proportion  which  the  respec- 
tive foreign-born  population  of  the  states  bears  to  the 
total  foreign-born  population  of  the  United  States.  The 
$20,000,000  for  physical  education  is  to  be  apportioned 
to  the  states  in  the  proportion  which  their  respective 
population  bears  to  the  total  population  of  the  United 
States  (per  capita  basis).  The  $15,000,000  for  the 
training  of  teachers  is  to  be  apportioned  in  the  propor- 
tion in  which  the  number  of  public  school  teachers  in 
the  respective  states  bears  to  the  total  number  of  public 
school  teachers  in  the  United  States.  The  $50,000,000 
for  equalization  is  to  be  apportioned  one-half  in  the 
proportion  that  the  number  of  children  between  the  ages 
of  six  and  twenty-one  of  the  respective  states  bears  to  the 
total  number  of  such  children  in  the  United  States,  and 
one-half  in  the  proportion  which  the  number  of  school 

[73] 


Description  of  Sterling -Towner  Bill 


teachers  employed  in  the  respective  states  bears  to  the 
total  number  of  public  school  teachers  in  the  United 
States. 

THE  “fifty-fifty”  BASIS 

The  appropriations  are  to  be  made  available  to  the 
states  on  the  so-called  “fifty-fifty”  basis,  which  means 
that  a state  in  order  to  receive  Federal  funds  must  appro- 
priate for  each  specific  purpose  at  least  as  much  money 
as  it  expects  to  receive  for  that  purpose  from  the  Federal 
Government.  For  physical  education,  the  training  of 
teachers  and  equalization,  the  state  must  appropriate, 
however,  not  less  than  it  appropriated  the  preceding 
year.  In  this  amount  may  be  figured  all  appropriations 
for  the  various  purposes  designated,  whether  made  by 
the  state  itself  or  by  any  city,  town,  or  county,  or  other 
sub-division  maintaining  public  schools. 

The  proponents  of  the  bill  seem  to  differ  among  them- 
selves as  to  the  extent  to  which  the  Federal  appro- 
priations would  require  increased  appropriations  by  the 
states.  Some  of  the  proponents  believe  that  the  bill, 
if  accepted  by  all  the  states,  would  mean  an  increase 
in  the  state  appropriations  of  $100,000,000.  Others 
favoring  the  bill,  with  whom  we  substantially  agree, 
have  taken  the  position  that  except  in  some  cases 
for  the  special  purposes,  state  appropriations  would  not 
need  to  be  increased.  For  example,  The  National  Com- 
mittee for  a Department  of  Education  in  its  pamphlet 
says: 

“The  states  are  now  spending  more  than  ten 
times  the  total  allotment,  so  that,  except  in  some 
cases  for  the  special  purposes,  appropriations  would 
not  need  to  be  increased  to  qualify  for  the  total  allot- 
ment to  the  state.” 

It  is  obvious  that  many  of  the  state  legislatures 
will  exert  themselves  to  obtain  the  maximum  of  Federal 
money  with  a minimum  expenditure  of  state  money  and 

[74] 


Description  of  Sterling -Towner  Bill 


that  a considerable  shifting  about  of  the  items  in  the 
present  state  appropriations  will  take  place.  The  largest 
appropriation  — that  for  $50,000,000  for  equalization  — 
is  so  vaguely  defined  that  it  hardly  seems  likely  that  it 
would  involve  an  increased  appropriation  in  any  state  in 
order  to  obtain  the  Federal  funds. 

MORTGAGING  STATE  FUNDS 

One  of  the  serious  but  inevitable  results  of  the  “fifty- 
fifty”  policy  will  undoubtedly  be  the  distortion  of  state 
educational  budgets  by  the  segregation  of  too  much 
of  the  available  funds  for  special  and  limited  purposes 
which  Congress  with  less  knowledge  of  local  budgets  and 
local  conditions  will  over-emphasize,  but  which  states 
will  submit  to  rather  than  lose  their  Federal  plum.  If 
this  meant  that  sufficient  funds  would  be  still  avail- 
able for  other  essential  purposes  the  result  would  be 
less  harmful.  But  certainly  this  will  not  always  be  the 
case. 

The  bill  does  not  give  evidence  of  careful  analysis. 
No  explanation  has  been  offered  by  those  who  prepared 
the  bill  or  those  who  advocated  its  passage  before  the 
Joint  Committee  as  to  how  conclusions  were  arrived  at 
either  as  to  the  amounts  or  the  division  of  the  appro- 
priations. They  are  all  good  round  figures  and  the  total 
adds  up  to  $100,000,000,  which  is  another  good  round 
figure. 

ILLITERACY  APPROPRIATION 

While  the  creators  and  proponents  of  the  Sterling- 
Towner  Bill  in  presenting  their  arguments  for  the  bill 
before  the  Joint  Committee  lumped  the  great  number 
of  negro  illiterates  into  their  illiteracy  figures  and  used 
them  to  urge  an  illiteracy  appropriation,  yet  when  we 
come  to  the  provisions  of  the  bill  we  find  nothing  requir- 
ing any  fixed  proportion  of  the  money,  or  indeed  any 
part  of  the  illiteracy  money,  to  be  used  to  reduce  negro 
illiteracy. 


Description  of  Sterling -Towner  Bill 


State 

Native  White 
Illiterates 

Negro 

Illiterates 

Amount  State 
would  Receive* 

Alabama  . . . 

65,394 

210,690 

$698,689 

Georgia  . . . 

66,796 

261,115 

775,350 

Louisiana  . . 

81,957 

206,730 

676,976 

Mississippi  . . 

22,242 

205,813 

547,545 

North  Carolina 

104,844 

133,674 

575,253 

South  Carolina 

38,742 

181,422 

551,315 

Virginia  . . . 

70,475 

122,322 

459,431 

Totals  . . . 

450,450 

1,321,766 

$4,284,559 

AMERICANIZATION  APPROPRIATION 
With  regard  to  the  appropriation  for  Americanization 
it  is  difficult  to  understand  the  reasons  which  led  the 
framers  of  the  bill  to  devise  a plan  appropriating  such 
huge  sums  of  money  to  the  states  already  having  strong 
educational  departments,  and  which  in  all  cases  are  now 
providing  additional  facilities  for  Americanization  and 
which  everyone  admits  are  well  able  to  sustain  the  ex- 
pense out  of  their  own  funds,  and,  so  far  as  we  are 
aware,  are  entirely  willing  to  do  so.  Under  the  bill,  the 
following  eight  states  receive  approximately  $5,000,000 
out  of  the  total  appropriation  of  $7,500,000  for 
Americanization : 


New  York  .... 

. . . $1,525,146 

Pennsylvania  . . . 

. . . 800,517 

Illinois 

. . . 668,949 

Massachusetts  . . 

. . . 587,880 

New  Jersey  . . . 

. . . 366,737 

Ohio 

. . . 332,097 

Michigan  .... 

. . . 331,640 

California  .... 

. . . 325,469 

$4,938,435 

* The  figures  for  the  apportionment  of  the  appropriations  quoted  in 
this  report  are  those  presented  to  the  Committee  of  Congress  at  the  hear- 
ing, July  10,  1919.  (Record  of  Hearing,  pp.  23-24.) 

[76] 


Description  of  Sterling- Towner  Bill 


PHYSICAL  EDUCATION  APPROPRIATION 
We  find  here,  again,  huge  appropriations  of  Federal 
funds  are  to  be  made  to  states  which  already  have  well- 
developed  physical  educational  systems  in  their  schools, 
states  whose  ability  to  pay  their  own  education  expenses 
no  one  anywhere  at  any  time  has  ever  questioned.  The 
following  states  receive  more  than  $500,000  for  physical 
education : 


New  York  .... 

. . . $1,982,211 

Pennsylvania  . . . 

. . . 1,667,161 

Illinois 

. . . 1,226,393 

Ohio 

. . . 1,036,848 

Texas 

. . . 847,497 

Massachusetts  . . 

. . . 732,195 

Missouri 

. . . 716,300 

Michigan  .... 

. . . 611,212 

Indiana 

. . . 587,440 

Georgia 

. . . 567,483 

New  Jersey  . . . 

. . . 551,833 

California  .... 

. . . 517,116 

Wisconsin  .... 

. . . 507,614 

Total  .... 

. . $11,551,303 

EQUALIZATION  APPROPRIATION 
This  bill  bears  little  relation  to  the  educational  needs 
of  the  country  described  by  its  promoters  as  its  reason 
for  being.  This  is  to  be  noted  in  the  treatment  of  the 
largest  appropriation  — $50,000,000  for  the  equaliza- 
tion of  education  — described  in  the  Act  as  follows: 

“ Shall  be  used  in  public  elementary  and  secondary 
schools  for  the  partial  payment  of  teachers’  salaries, 
for  providing  better  instruction  and  extending  school 
terms,  especially  in  rural  schools  and  schools  in 
sparsely  settled  localities,  and  otherwise  providing 
equally  good  educational  opportunities  for  the 
children  in  the  several  states,  and  for  the  extension 
and  adaptation  of  public  libraries  for  educational 
purposes.” 


Description  of  Sterling -T owner  Bill 


This  appropriation  is  apparently  intended  to  strike 
at  the  very  root  of  the  two  most  important  arguments 
advanced  for  Federal  participation,  — need  of  improving 
rural  schools  and  of  increasing  teachers’  salaries. 

The  basis  of  distribution,  however,  bears  no  particular 
relation  to  the  necessities.  This  has  been  well  commented 
upon  by  Professor  Judd,  Director  of  the  School  of 
Education,  University  of  Chicago: 

“So  I say  with  regard  to  subsidies,  let  us  have 
clearness,  let  us  make  our  Federal  subsidies  on  a 
sound  scientific  basis.  We  have  been  saying  to  the 
Superintendents,  6 Do  not  ask  your  community  for 
funds  unless  you  are  clear  and  have  distinct  grounds 
for  your  demands  and  definite  plans  for  distribution 
of  the  funds.  Be  intelligent  before  you  go  before 
your  people.  But  in  this  larger  national  demand  we 
have  gone  before  Congress  with  a bill  that  lacks 
every  one  of  the  requirements  that  we  impose  on 
local  schools.  Every  figure  in  the  present  bill  is  a 
mere  guess;  not  only  so  but  the  principles  for  the 
distribution  of  such  funds  as  are  specified  are  a de- 
plorable series  of  incoherences.  I will  give  one  illus- 
tration. Take  two  items,  the  illiteracy  fund  and  the 
teachers’  fund.  The  illiteracy  fund  is  distributed  in 
proportion  to  the  number  of  illiterates  in  the  state. 
Let  us  assume  that  this  is  a wise  method  of  distri- 
bution. When  we  turn  to  the  teachers’  fund  we  find 
that  it  is  to  be  distributed  according  to  the  number 
of  teachers  in  the  state.  This  looks  like  the  same 
principle  as  that  accepted  for  the  distribution  of  the 
illiteracy  fund  but  in  reality  it  is  the  reverse.  We 
give  money  in  the  case  of  illiterates  to  cure  defects. 
We  give  money  to  the  teachers  in  proportion  to  their 
excellence.”  (University  of  Illinois  Bulletin,  De- 
cember 26,  1921,  p.  99.) 

Bearing  in  mind  the  importance  that  has  been  given  to 
the  inequality  in  wealth  between  the  states  by  the  advo- 
cates of  the  bill,  it  will  be  interesting  to  compare  the 
allotment  which  is  to  be  used  for  improving  rural  schools 

[78J 


Description  of  Sterling -Towner  Bill 


and  increasing  the  pay  of  teachers  between  the  poor  and 
wealthy  states,  those  now  paying  low  salaries  and  those 
paying  high  salaries,  and  states  with  high  percentages 
and  low  percentages  of  rural  population.  We  give  the 
following  figures : 

Percentage  Average 

Per  Unit  Rural  of  Total  Salary 

Appropriation  of  Rural  Population  Population  Teachers 


for  Equalization  Population 

State 

1920 

Rural 

1917-18 

$1,496,150 

$7.40 

Massachusetts 

202,108 

5.2 

$858 

4,363,978 

2.43 

New  York 

1,795,383 

17.3 

976 

2,795,978 

1.34 

Illinois 

2,079,602 

32.1 

778 

2,327,513 

.74 

Texas 

3,150,539 

67.6 

487 

843,067 

.67 

So.  Carolina 

1,389,737 

82.5 

315 

1,020,874 

.66 

Mississippi 

1,550,497 

86.6 

291 

We  find  that  New  York,  a wealthy  state  with  a rural 
population  of  only  17.3  per  cent,  and  paying  its  teachers 
an  average  salary  of  $976,  is  to  receive  $4,363,978  of  the 
equalization  appropriation,  or  $2.43  per  person  of  the 
rural  population,  while  Mississippi,  which  is  86.6  per  cent 
rural,  and  pays  its  teachers  an  average  salary  of  $291, 
is  to  receive  $1,020,874,  or  only  $0.66  per  person  of  the 
rural  population.  As  a matter  of  fact,  the  number  of 
rural  inhabitants  in  Mississippi  is  very  nearly  as  large 
as  the  number  in  New  York  State.  Massachusetts, 
with  a rural  population  of  only  202,108  and  paying  its 
teachers  an  average  salary  of  $858,  is  to  receive  $1,496,- 
150,  or  $7.40  per  person  of  the  rural  population  for 
improving  rural  schools  and  raising  salaries  of  its  teach- 
ers, while  South  Carolina,  with  a rural  population  of 
1,389,737  (almost  seven  times  that  of  Massachusetts), 
and  paying  its  teachers  $315,  is  to  receive  $843,067, 
or  $0.67  per  person  of  the  rural  population.  The  com- 
parison between  Texas  and  Illinois  further  illustrates 
the  same  absurd  results  for  the  method  of  apportion- 
ment. The  bill  purports  to  equalize  rural  conditions, 
when  as  a matter  of  fact  its  effect  will  be  still  more  to 
exaggerate  the  present  inequalities. 

[79] 


Description  of  Sterling -T owner  Bill 


THE  APPROPRIATION  FOR  TRAINING  TEACHERS 
Fifteen  million  dollars  is  to  be  appropriated  for  the 
training  of  teachers.  Comment  should  be  made  on  one 
feature  of  this  appropriation.  It  is  provided  among 
other  things,  that  the  money  appropriated  under  this 
section  may  be  used  “to  provide  an  increased  number 
of  trained  and  competent  teachers  by  encouraging, 
through  the  establishment  of  scholarships  and  other- 
wise, a greater  number  of  talented  young  people  to 
make  adequate  preparation  for  public-school  service.” 

This  policy  is  referred  to  by  leading  advocates  of  the 
bill  as  the  extension  of  the  “West  Point”  policy  to 
normal  schools;  the  theory  being  that  as  the  govern- 
ment furnishes  free  education  to  the  students  at  West 
Point  and  Annapolis  the  same  principle  should  be  ex- 
tended to  the  students  of  the  normal  schools.  (Keith 
and  Bagley,  “The  Nation  and  the  Schools,”  p.  286.) 

We  are  right  in  “West  Pointing”  our  fighting  ma- 
chine but  let  us  go  slow  in  “West  Pointing”  our  teachers. 

As  there  are  at  present  more  than  250  state,  city,  and 
county  normal  schools  with  an  enrollment  in  1918  of 
110,053,  the  possible  consequences  of  this  policy  to  the 
Federal  treasury  may  well  be  viewed  with  some  concern. 

DIVISION  BETWEEN  STATES 
We  have  not  referred  as  yet  to  the  division  of  the 
total  appropriation  as  between  the  states.  The  follow- 
ing eight  states  receive  $40,000,000  out  of  the  $100,000,- 
000  appropriation: 

New  York $9,246,846 

Pennsylvania 7,338,739 

Illinois 5,595,490 

Ohio 4,712,732 

Massachusetts 3,261,087 

Michigan 3,046,305 

Iowa 3,019,743 

Texas 4,397,742 

$40,618,684 


Description  of  Sterling- Towner  Bill 


These  states,  while  doubtless  having  their  share  of 
shortcomings,  cannot  be  classed  as  states  with  backward 
educational  institutions.  They  pay  their  teachers  well 
above  the  average  for  the  country.  There  is  neither 
an  educational  nor  a poverty  argument  for  Federal  aid 
for  these  states. 

A LOG-ROLLING  BILL 

The  evidence  irresistibly  leads  to  the  conclusion 
that  the  bill  has  not  been  framed  with  a view  to  doing 
the  maximum  for  education.  Statesmanlike  educa- 
tional policy  is  not  there.  The  hand  of  the  skilled 
politician  is  seen.  The  bill  is  constructed  on  well- 
known  log-rolling  principles.  There  is  to  be  a piece 
of  pie  for  everybody.  The  bill  itself  is  a most  unhappy 
augury  of  the  sort  of  legislation  that  may  be  expected 
once  we  embark  upon  a policy  of  Federal  participation. 


[81] 


FEDERAL  SUBSIDIES  MAKE  FEDERAL 
CONTROL  INEVITABLE 

We  have  stated  throughout  our  argument  that  Fed- 
eral participation  in  public  school  education  is  revolu- 
tionary because  it  means  Federal  control  of  our  public 
school  system.  Many  of  those  who  advocate  the  bill, 
however,  sincerely  believe  that  it  contains  every  pre- 
caution against  Federal  control.  This  thought  is  well 
evidenced  by  the  resolution  passed  by  the  National 
Education  Association  at  the  convention  in  Salt  Lake 
City  in  1920,  as  follows: 

“We  urge  the  immediate  passage  of  the  Smith- 
Towner  Bill  by  which  Federal  participation  in  the 
support  of  public  education  is  provided  and  which, 
at  the  same  time,  preserves  the  autonomy  of  the 
state  in  the  management  of  its  schools.  We  con- 
demn the  efforts  of  the  enemies  of  the  public  schools 
to  defeat  this  measure,  particularly  by  stigma- 
tizing it  as  a measure  which  involves  national  con- 
trol of  education.  Such  control  is  not  only  clearly 
unconstitutional,  but  it  is  out  of  harmony  with  the 
spirit  of  American  institutions.  This  Association 
pledges  itself  unreservedly  to  oppose  any  move- 
ment or  proposal  that  would  centralize  control  of 
the  public  schools.” 

It  is  further  pointed  out  by  those  who  support  the 
bill  and  condemn  Federal  control  that  any  danger  of 
Federal  control  is  specifically  provided  against  by  the 
language  of  the  bill  itself : 

“All  funds  apportioned  to  a State  shall  be  dis- 
tributed and  administered  in  accordance  with  the 
laws  of  said  State  in  like  manner  as  the  funds 
provided  by  State  and  local  authorities  for  the 
same  purpose,  and  the  State  and  local  educational 
authorities  of  said  State  shall  determine  the  courses 
of  study,  plans,  and  methods  for  carrying  out  the 
purposes  of  this  section  within  said  State  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  laws  thereof.” 


Federal  Control  Inevitable 


And  provided  further: 

“That  all  the  educational  facilities  encouraged  by 
the  provisions  of  this  act  and  accepted  by  a State 
shall  be  organized,  supervised,  and  administered  ex- 
clusively by  the  legally  constituted  State  and  local 
educational  authorities  of  said  State,  and  the  Secre- 
tary of  Education  shall  exercise  no  authority  in 
relation  thereto;  and  this  Act  shall  not  be  construed 
to  imply  Federal  control  of  education  within  the 
States,  nor  to  impair  the  freedom  of  the  States  in 
the  conduct  and  management  of  their  respective 
school  systems.” 

But  these  limiting  words  are  not  consistent  with  the 
essence  and  nature  of  the  bill.  If  the  policy  imbedded 
in  the  bill  ever  gets  under  way  they  will  prove  inade- 
quate. They  are  a Ford  brake  on  a Pierce-Arrow  car. 
They  don’t  fit  and  they  won’t  hold. 

ORIGINAL  FORM  OF  BILL  SET  UP  FEDERAL  CONTROL 
The  history  of  the  bill  shows  that  Federal  control  was 
contemplated  by  the  National  Education  Association 
Commission  on  the  National  Program  in  Education 
which  originated  the  present  bill.  We  quote  Professor 
Charles  H.  Judd,  Director  of  the  School  of  Education, 
University  of  Chicago: 

“We  have  seen  this  bill  amended  two  or  three 
times.  In  the  first  place,  the  bill  was  adopted  by 
the  National  Education  Association  in  1918.  That 
bill  needed  radical  revision  and  some  of  us  said  so. 
We  were  told  to  keep  quiet  in  the  hope  that  Congress 
would  act  quickly.  We  did  until  the  fourth  of 
March,  1919.  When  Congress  showed  no  disposition 
to  act  quickly  some  of  us  ventured  to  voice  our  objec- 
tions to  the  provisions  of  the  first  bill.  That  bill  con- 
tained exactly  the  provisions  of  the  Smith-Hughes  law 
with  regard  to  Federal  control  of  funds  given  to  states. 

It  gave  control  to  the  Federal  Department  of  Educa- 
tion on  exactly  the  same  terms  that  control  was  given 
to  the  Federal  Board  for  V ocational  Education.  For 

[83] 


Federal  Control  Inevitable 


a period  of  nine  months  that  was  the  form  of  the 
bill.  During  these  nine  months  there  was  no  public 
discussion  of  the  bill  but  a good  deal  of  personal  dis- 
cussion was  carried  on  and  such  objection  was  found 
among  state  officials  to  the  control  features  of  the 
bill  that  by  the  time  the  bill  turned  up  in  the  next 
Congress  it  had  to  be  changed  to  secure  general 
support.  It  was  changed  in  such  a manner  as  to 
give  it  exactly  the  opposite  effect.  No  public  dis- 
cussion, mark  you,  had  preceded  this  change.  It 
seems  to  me  that  it  is  fair  to  infer  that  the  framers  of 
this  bill  were  without  any  real  policy  in  the  matter. 
They  were  ready  to  reverse  themselves  on  cardinal 
issues  to  secure  support.  It  is  my  judgment  that  we 
have  a right  to  ask  for  more  insight  on  the  part  of 
those  who  frame  our  bills.”  (University  of  Illinois 
Bulletin,  December  26,  1921,  p.  98.) 

We  also  give  the  account  of  the  history  of  the  bill 
furnished  before  the  Joint  Senate  and  House  Committee, 
July  11,  1919,  in  the  statement  of  Mr.  L.  V.  Lampson, 
First  Vice-President  American  Federation  of  Teachers, 
affiliated  with  the  American  Federation  of  Labor: 

“The  facts  relating  to  the  inception  and  history 
of  this  bill  should  appear  in  the  report  of  these  pro- 
ceedings for  the  information  of  the  country.  They 
are  in  substance  as  follows:  At  a convention  held  in 
St.  Paul,  in  June,  1918,  upon  a resolution  intro- 
duced by  Delegate  Stillman,  representing  the  or- 
ganized teachers,  the  American  Federation  of  Labor 
went  on  record  in  favor  of  the  creation  of  a depart- 
ment of  education,  and  the  annual  appropriation  of 
$100,000,000  by  the  Federal  Government  in  aid  of 
teachers’  salaries. 

“Senator  Kenyon:  The  American  Federation  of 
Labor? 

“Yes,  sir.  At  its  convention  in  Pittsburg,  held 
in  June  of  1918,  the  American  Federation  of  Teachers 
went  on  record  in  favor  of  resolutions  of  similar  im- 
port. 


Federal  Control  Inevitable 


“In  conformity  with  these  resolutions  a bill  was 
in  the  process  of  being  drafted.  In  the  meantime,  the 
National  Education  Association  secured  the  intro- 
duction into  the  Senate  of  what  is  known  as  the 
Smith  Bill,  which  had  as  its  object  the  creation  of  a 
department  of  education  and  the  annual  appro- 
priation of  $100,000,000  for  Federal  cooperation 
with  the  States  in  the  encouragement  and  support 
of  education.  Then  followed  the  introduction  of  the 
Smith  Bill,  amended,  into  the  House  under  the  name 
of  the  Towner  Bill. 

“As  a result  of  various  conferences  between  the 
legislative  sponsors  of  these  two  bills,  and  the  offi- 
cial representatives  of  the  three  organizations  men- 
tioned, there  was  introduced  into  the  House  and 
Senate,  at  the  request  of  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor,  the  American  Federation  of  Teachers,  and 
the  National  Education  Association,  what  is  known 
as  the  Smith-Towner  bill,  revised/’  (Record  of 
Joint  Hearings,  pp.  114,  115.) 

THE  BILL  LAYS  SURE  FOUNDATION  FOR  FEDERAL 
CONTROL 

The  present  bill  already  carries  in  it  in  express  words 
the  beginnings  of  Federal  control  in  two  important 
respects. 

Although  setting  up  the  very  minimum  of  standards 
it  has  appeared  to  the  proponents  at  the  outset  to  be 
at  least  necessary  that  the  bill  should  provide  that  the 
states  should  establish  and  maintain  the  following 
three  standards : 

(a)  A legal  school  term  of  at  least  twenty-four 
weeks. 

(b)  Compulsory  school  attendance  law  requiring 
all  children  between  the  ages  of  seven  and 
fourteen  to  attend  school. 

(c)  A law  requiring  that  the  English  language  be 
the  basic  language  of  instruction  in  all  schools, 
public  and  private. 

[85] 


Federal  Control  Inevitable 


The  setting  up  of  these  Federal  standards  will  require 
an  investigating  force  in  order  to  make  sure  that  they 
are  maintained  as  provided  in  the  Act,  and  the  bill  also 
gives  the  power  to  the  administrator  of  the  Act  to 
withhold  the  appropriation.  When  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment begins  by  setting  up  standards,  no  matter 
how  good  or  necessary  they  may  be,  and  in  giving 
some  one  the  power  to  withhold  appropriations,  Fed- 
eral control  has  begun. 

It  is  indeed  significant  that  the  same  bill  which  pro- 
vides for  these  huge  Federal  appropriations  for  edu- 
cation also  establishes  a Department  of  Education  with 
a Secretary  at  the  head,  who  is  to  be  a member  of  the 
Cabinet,  with  an  appropriation  of  $500,000  for  ad- 
ministrative expenses,  so  that  the  necessary  adminis- 
trative machinery  is  being  set  up  in  the  very  bill  which 
proclaims  in  another  section  that  no  degree  of  Federal 
control  is  contemplated. 

WITHOUT  FEDERAL  CONTROL  WASTE  IS 
INEVITABLE 

The  advocates  of  Federal  participation  and  Federal 
appropriations,  if  they  oppose  all  Federal  responsibility 
for  and  control  of  the  expenditure  of  the  money,  are 
placed  in  an  awkward  dilemma,  for  without  control 
there  will  be  tremendous  waste  of  Federal  funds.  The 
history  of  subsidies  even  for  educational  purposes  shows 
that  Federal  bonuses  without  any  machinery  on  the 
part  of  the  National  Government  to  see  to  their  appli- 
cation has  led  in  the  case  of  many  states  to  great  waste 
and  in  numerous  cases  to  the  sequestration  of  the  entire 
fund  to  purposes  entirely  foreign  to  the  purpose  of  the 
donor. 

WASTE  OF  THE  LAND  GRANTS 

We  can  find  no  better  illustration  of  this  than  in  the 
past  history  of  the  public  school  funds.  We  quote  from  a 
report  by  Professor  Swift  of  the  University  of  Minnesota: 


Federal  Control  Inevitable 


“The  domain  granted  specifically  for  schools  by 
our  National  Government  to  its  30  public  land 
states,  114,000  square  miles,  is  larger  than  Italy, 
more  than  twice  as  large  as  England,  more  than 
nine  times  as  large  as  Maryland  and  23  times  as  large 
as  the  state  of  Connecticut. 

“Even  more  startling  are  the  findings  reached 
when  we  compare  the  nations  and  states  selected  with 
the  total  Federal  area  which  might  have  been  devoted 
to  schools.  This  potential  school  land  empire  of 
233,000  square  miles  is  more  than  twice  as  large  as 
Italy,  considerably  larger  than  England  and  Italy 
combined,  and  four  and  one-half  times  as  large  as 
England.  It  would  have  made  47  states  the  size  of 
Connecticut  besides  leaving  2,700  square  miles  for 
a Federal  District  which  would  be  nearly  three 
times  the  size  of  the  present  District  of  Columbia 
(1,000  square  miles).  If  we  add  to  the  Federal  land 
grants  the  area  of  the  grants  devoted  to  permanent 
funds  by  the  states  receiving  no  Federal  lands,  we 
find  we  have  as  the  total  area  which  might  have 
been  devoted  to  permanent  funds  over  31 1,000  square 
miles.  This  is  a domain  almost  large  enough  to  have 
made  an  Italy  and  a France.  Out  of  it  might  have 
been  carved  nearly  three  Italies;  more  than  six  Eng- 
lands;  three  Coloradoes;  twenty-six  Mary  lands; 
seven  and  a half  Ohios;  or  sixty-three  Connecticuts. 

“ Let  us  not  dismiss  this  comparison  without  noting 
that  not  only  in  vastness  of  extent  but  that  in  variety 
and  wealth  of  natural  resources  this  school  domain 
is  worthy  to  be  designated  an  Empire. 

“From  contemplating  the  school  heritage  which 
might  have  been  we  now  pass  to  the  stern  reality; 
namely,  that  even  an  incomplete  record  shows  that 
in  32  of  our  states  funds  totalling  many  millions  of 
dollars  have  been  lost,  diverted  or  squandered.  In 
sixteen  states,  school  endowments  exist  entirely  or 
in  part  only  as  an  unproductive  state  debt;  and  in 
nine  states  the  funds  annually  reported  as  permanent 
endowments  are  mere  fictions  having  no  existence 

[87] 


Federal  Control  Inevitable 


whatever  except  on  paper.  If  we  confine  our  atten- 
tion to  the  thirty  states  receiving  land  grants  from 
the  Federal  government  we  find  that  in  eleven  of 
these  the  situation  parallels  that  just  described.  Let 
us  not  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  many  public  land 
states  have  cherished  their  school  endowments  as 
sacred  heritages,  but  in  the  immediately  following 
paragraphs  our  concern  will  not  be  with  these  states 
but  rather  with  those  whose  funds  have  been  diverted 
or  lost. 

* * * * * 

“The  real  facts  in  the  case  are  that  in  no  less  than 
one-third  of  our  states  the  funds  reported  as  per- 
manent school  funds  are  totally  or  largely  mere 
fictions.  In  some  states  funds  once  accumulated 
have  been  diverted  or  lost.  In  other  states,  such  as 
Michigan,  Maine,  and  Ohio,  the  state  has  by  legis- 
lation adopted  a definite  policy  of  using  for  its  own 
purpose  all  monies  paid  into  the  state  treasury  to 
the  credit  of  the  permanent  fund  and  establishing 
a state  debt  on  which  the  commonwealth  binds 
itself  to  pay  interest  at  a fixed  rate  to  public  schools 

***** 

“The  situation  revealed  by  the  preceding  table 
is  a melancholy  record  of  the  outcome  of  the  vast 
and  generous  grants  bestowed  by  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment for  the  support  of  public  schools.  The  story 
told  is  one  of  amazing  waste  of  a great  national  gift. 
Carelessness,  mismanagement,  diversion,  theft,  em- 
bezzlement and  land  frauds  are  some  of  the  causes 
that  have  played  a part  in  the  dissipation  of  these 
princely  endowments. 

“Much  of  the  mismanagement  and  many  of  the 
losses  recorded  in  the  last  three  tables  were  undoubt- 
edly due  to  the  inexperience  of  the  states  receiving 
these  grants,  and  to  their  lack  of  adequate  vision  of 
the  possibilities  of  such  endowments,  and  of  a proper 
conception  of  the  purposes  of  the  same.  Such  a de- 
fence cannot  be  made,  however,  of  states  which  with 

[SB] 


Federal  Control  Inevitable 


generations  of  experience  continue  to  mismanage  or 
divert  these  sacred  trusts.  Arkansas  is  an  example 
of  a state  pursuing  such  policies.  A study  of  the  Fed- 
eral land  grants  devoted  by  this  state  to  her  per- 
manent public  school  fund  shows  that  had  this  fund 
been  properly  managed  Arkansas  would  today  pos- 
sess a permanent  endowment  of  ninety-two  million 
dollars,  yielding  an  annual  revenue  of  $4,600,000, 
more  than  }/$  of  the  total  amount  Arkansas  expended 
for  public  schools  in  the  year  1920.  Instead  of  any 
such  princely  sum  Arkansas  has  today  a non-produc- 
tive fund  whose  paltry  annual  income  of  $74,000  is 
a pure  fiction  raised  by  a state  tax. 

“If  space  permitted  it  would  be  interesting  to 
trace  the  process  by  which  this  fund  was  deprived 
of  the  lands  devoted  to  it  by  constitution  and  de- 
frauded by  laws  which  gave  (and  still  give)  title  to 
school  lands  to  persons  who  were  able  to  show  tax 
receipts  for  a certain  number  of  years  but  who  un- 
doubtedly had  no  legitimate  claim  to  the  lands 
deeded  them.  Indeed,  a study  of  the  present  as  well 
as  of  the  past  laws  in  Arkansas  would  seem  to  show 
that  the  citizens  of  this  commonwealth  have  con- 
ceived of  their  permanent  fund  and  of  the  lands  given 
them  by  the  federal  government  for  public  schools 
primarily  as  sources  of  revenue  to  be  used  for  the  ad- 
vantage of  individual  citizens  or  to  be  employed  to 
rescue  the  state  from  any  and  every  financial  crisis. 
As  late  as  1921,  $180,000  in  cash  which  had  been  ac- 
cumulated in  the  state  treasury  to  the  credit  of  the 
permanent  fund  was  used  to  pay  the  state’s  peniten- 
tiary debt  and  was  replaced  by  state  paper.  One  of 
the  most  significant,  as  well  as  one  of  the  most  dis- 
heartening features  of  the  situation  is  the  fact  that 
the  transactions  involved  were  entirely  lawful,  being 
in  fact  merely  the  carrying  out  of  the  provisions  of 
the  legislature. 

“From  the  account  just  given  of  Arkansas  trans- 
actions, it  will  be  seen  that  the  story,  begun  long 
ago  in  Ohio  when  school  lands  worth  $50  were  sold 

[89] 


Federal  Control  Inevitable 


for  $6  and  to  which  another  great  chapter  was  added 
when  monies  derived  from  federal  grants  for  schools 
were  employed  for  purposes  entirely  unjustifiable, 
continues  today  in  some  of  our  states  at  least.” 
(Swift,  “ Federal  Aid  to  Public  Schools,”  pp.  45-48, 
50,  53.) 

FEDERAL  ROAD  AID  ALREADY  BEGINNING  SHOWS 
NEED  OF  FEDERAL  CONTROL 

An  example  of  the  necessity  for  Federal  control  as  a 
consequence  of  subsidies  is  seen  in  the  Good  Roads 
Appropriation,  which  was  passed  in  1916  on  the  same 
“fifty-fifty”  basis  contemplated  in  the  proposed  Ster- 
ling-Towner  Bill  for  education.  We  quote  from  Presi- 
dent Harding’s  Message  to  Congress,  April  12,  1921 : 

“Large  Federal  outlay  demands  a Federal  voice 
in  the  program  of  expenditure.  Congress  can  not 
justify  a mere  gift  from  the  Federal  purse  to  the 
several  States,  to  be  prorated  among  the  counties 
for  road  betterment.  Such  a course  will  invite  abuses 
which  it  were  better  to  guard  against  in  the  beginning. 

“Highways,  no  matter  how  generous  the  outlay  for 
construction,  can  not  be  maintained  without  patrol 
and  constant  repair.  Such  conditions  insisted  upon 
in  the  grant  of  Federal  aid  will  safeguard  the  public, 
which  pays  and  guards  the  Federal  Government 
against  political  abuses  which  tend  to  defeat  the 
very  purposes  for  which  we  authorize  Federal  ex- 
penditure.” 

This  statement  of  President  Harding,  together  with 
his  recommendation  for  such  amendment  of  the  “Good- 
Roads”  Act  as  will  bring  about  effective  supervision  on 
the  part  of  the  Federal  Government  of  the  expenditure 
of  the  money,  shows  plainly  enough  where  the  Federal 
Government  must  finally  land  if  it  is  to  embark  on  the 
policy  of  great  annual  Federal  appropriations  for  school 
purposes.  The  self-denying  words  inserted  in  this  Act 

[90] 


Federal  Control  Inevitable 


as  an  afterthought  furnish  no  permanent  guaranty. 
If  we  are  drawing  the  specifications  for  a bridge,  we  can- 
not make  it  safe  by  inserting  words  saying  that  the  law 
of  gravity  is  suspended. 

SUBSIDY  AND  CONTROL 

In  reviewing  the  inevitable  tendency  of  the  subsidy 
policy  to  carry  control  with  it,  it  is  interesting  to  notice 
that  in  England  the  effect  of  granting  subsidies  to  the 
local  governments  under  the  name  of  “grants  in  aid” 
is  well  understood.  Sidney  Webb,  the  well-known 
British  economist,  who  has  been  one  of  the  champions 
of  National  “Grants  in  Aid,”  says  in  his  book  on  the 
subject: 

“The  second  reason  for  a system  of  grants  in  aid 
is  of  even  greater  moment  than  that  of  Equaliza- 
tion of  Burdens.  They  are  needed  to  give  weight  to 
the  suggestions,  criticisms  and  authoritative  instruc- 
tions by  which  the  central  authority  seeks  to  secure 
greater  efficiency  and  economy  of  administration. 
This  is  indeed  by  far  the  most  important  aspect  of 
Grants  in  Aid.”  (Sidney  Webb,  “Grants  in  Aid,” 

p.  11.) 

EDUCATION  NOT  MORE  VITAL  TO  NATIONAL  GOVERN- 
MENT THAN  TO  STATE  AND  LOCAL  UNITS 

There  is  a tendency  on  the  part  of  some  educational 
leaders  to  set  up  the  Nation  as  a mysterious  entity  with 
a sort  of  sacrosanct  character,  and  to  claim  that  the 
Nation’s  interest  in  education  in  some  way  transcends 
that  of  the  states  or  of  the  local  governments.  In  their 
enthusiasm  they  overlook  the  fact  that  the  common  life 
of  every  citizen  is  much  more  intimately  concerned  with 
his  local  and  state  government  than  with  the  National 
Government.  The  low  standard  of  education  in  any 
state  is  of  far  more  consequence  to  the  people  living  in 
that  state  than  it  is  to  the  residents  of  other  states  in 
distant  parts  of  the  country. 

[91] 


Federal  Control  Inevitable 


Danger  of  Federalization  to  Educational 
Progress 

The  federalization  of  our  schools  would  be  the  worst 
possible  thing  for  educational  progress  in  this  country. 
The  danger  to  education  has  been  well  presented  by 
President  Butler  of  Columbia  University. 

“So  far  as  education  is  concerned,  there  has  been 
over-organization  for  a long  time  past.  Too  many 
persons  are  engaged  in  supervising,  in  inspecting 
and  in  recording  the  work  of  other  persons.  There 
is  too  much  machinery,  and  in  consequence  a steady 
temptation  to  lay  more  stress  upon  the  form  of  edu- 
cation than  upon  its  content.  Statistics  displace 
scholarship.  There  are,  in  addition,  too  many  laws 
and  too  precise  laws,  and  not  enough  opportunity 
for  those  mistakes  and  failures,  due  to  individual 
initiative  and  experiment,  which  are  the  foundation 
for  great  and  lasting  success. 

“It  is  now  proposed  to  bureaucratize  and  to  bring 
into  uniformity  the  educational  system  of  the  whole 
United  States,  while  making  the  most  solemn  assur- 
ance that  nothing  of  the  kind  is  intended.  The  glory 
and  the  success  of  education  in  the  United  States  are 
due  to  its  freedom,  to  its  unevennesses,  to  its  reflec- 
tion of  the  needs  and  ambition  and  capacities  of  local 
communities,  and  to  its  being  kept  in  close  and  con- 
stant touch  with  the  people  themselves.  There  is 
not  money  enough  in  the  United  States,  even  if  every 
dollar  of  it  were  expended  on  education,  to  produce 
by  Federal  authority  or  through  what  is  naively 
called  cooperation  between  the  Federal  Government 
and  the  several  states,  educational  results  that  would 
be  at  all  comparable  with  those  that  have  already 
been  reached  under  the  free  and  natural  system 
that  has  grown  up  among  us.  If  tax-supported 
education  be  first  encouraged  and  inspected,  and  then 
little  by  little  completely  controlled  by  central 
authority,  European  experience  shows  precisely  what 
will  happen.  In  so  far  as  the  schools  of  France  are 

[92] 


Federal  Control  Inevitable 


controlled  from  the  Ministry  of  Education  in  Paris, 
they  tend  to  harden  into  uniform  machines,  and  it 
is  only  when  freedom  is  given  to  different  types  of 
schools,  or  to  different  localities,  that  any  real  prog- 
ress is  made.  Anything  worse  than  the  system  which 
has  prevailed  in  Prussia  would  be  difficult  to  imagine. 
It  is  universally  acknowledged  that  the  unhappy 
decline  in  German  university  freedom  and  effective- 
ness, and  the  equally  unhappy  subjection  of  the 
educated  classes  to  the  dictates  of  the  political  and 
military  ruling  groups,  were  the  direct  result  of  the 
highly  centralized  and  efficient  control  from  Berlin 
of  the  nation’s  schools  and  universities.  For  Ameri- 
cans now  to  accept  oversight  and  direction  of  their 
tax-supported  schools  and  colleges  from  Washington 
would  mean  that  they  had  failed  to  learn  one  of 
the  plainest  and  most  weighty  lessons  of  the  war. 
It  is  true  that  education  is  a national  problem  and  a 
national  responsibility;  it  is  also  true  that  it  has 
been  characteristic  of  the  American  people  to  solve 
their  most  difficult  national  problems  and  to  bear 
their  heaviest  national  responsibilities  through  their 
own  action  in  the  field  of  liberty  rather  than  through 
the  agency  of  organized  government.  Once  more  to 
tap  the  federal  treasury  under  the  guise  of  aiding  the 
states,  and  once  more  to  establish  an  army  of  bureau- 
crats in  Washington  and  another  army  of  inspectors 
roaming  at  large  throughout  the  land,  will  not  only 
fail  to  accomplish  any  permanent  improvement  in  the 
education  of  our  people,  but  it  will  assist  in  effecting 
so  great  a revolution  in  our  American  form  of  govern- 
ment as  one  day  to  endanger  its  perpetuity.  Illit- 
eracy will  not  be  sensibly  diminished,  if  at  all,  by 
federal  appropriations,  nor  will  the  physical  health 
of  the  people  be  thereby  improved.  The  major 
portion  of  any  appropriation  that  may  be  made  will 
certainly  be  swallowed  up  in  meeting  the  cost  of 
doing  ill  that  which  should  not  be  done  at  all.  The 
true  path  of  advance  in  education  is  to  be  found  in 
the  direction  of  keeping  the  people’s  schools  closely 


Federal  Control  Inevitable 


in  touch  with  the  people  themselves.  Bureaucrats 
and  experts  will  speedily  take  the  life  out  of  even 
the  best  schools  and  reduce  them  to  dried  and 
mounted  specimens  of  pedagogic  fatuity.  Unless 
the  school  is  both  the  work  and  the  pride  of  the  com- 
munity which  it  serves,  it  is  nothing.  A school  system 
that  grows  naturally  in  response  to  the  needs  and  am- 
bitions of  a hundred  thousand  different  localities,  will 
be  a better  school  system  than  any  which  can  be  im- 
posed upon  those  localities  by  the  aid  of  grants  of  pub- 
lic money  from  the  federal  treasury,  accompanied  by 
federal  regulations,  federal  inspections,  federal  reports 
and  federal  uniformities.”  (Columbia  University 
Annual  Report  of  the  President,  1921,  pp.  21-22.) 

We  conclude  the  discussion  of  Federal  participation 
in  public  school  education  with  the  closing  words  of  the 
notable  address  of  President  Kinley,  made  last  December 
on  the  occasion  of  his  installation  as  President  of  the 
University  of  Illinois: 

“The  most  important  question  of  internal  adminis- 
tration before  the  American  people  today  is  whether 
or  not  this  onward  sweep  of  Federal  control  over  the 
details  of  their  local  affairs  shall  go  on.  The  part  of 
that  question  which  we  are  considering  today  is 
whether  it  is  advisable  to  permit  it  to  include  our 
education.  Shall  we  accept  the  doctrine  that  we  are 
destined  to  become  a great  continental  democracy, 
governed  in  all  important  public  activities  from  Wash- 
ington, or  shall  we  try  to  preserve  the  local  autonomy 
in  communities  and  States  which  is  necessary  to  the 
preservation  of  our  liberties?  If  we  accept  the  doc- 
trine that  it  is  well  to  become  a continental  democ- 
racy, there  is  no  need  of  further  discussion,  and 
State  governments  may  as  well  be  abandoned.  If 
we  do  not  accept  that  doctrine,  but  stand  up 
against  the  present  tendency,  we  should  keep  our 
State  governments  in  substance  and  not  merely  in 
form.  Above  all,  we  should  keep  our  education  out 
of  Federal  bureaucratic  control.”  (University  of  Illi- 
nois Bulletin,  December  26,  1921,  p.  46.) 


DO  WE  NEED  A FEDERAL  DEPARTMENT 
OF  EDUCATION? 

The  second  question  referred  to  the  committee  for  con- 
sideration is  the  coordination  of  the  educational  activities 
of  the  government.  This  question  calls  for  a discussion  of 
the  proposal  in  the  Sterling-Towner  Bill  to  establish  a De- 
partment of  Education  with  a Secretary  in  the  Cabinet. 
The  bill  provides  $500,000  for  the  first  year’s  expenses  of 
the  new  Department,  and  provides  (Section  5)  — 

“ that  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Department  of  Edu- 
cation to  conduct  studies  and  investigations  in  the 
held  of  education  and  report  thereon. 

“Research  shall  be  undertaken  in: 

(a)  Illiteracy; 

(b)  Immigrant  education; 

(c)  Public  school  education,  and  especially  rural 
education; 

(d)  Physical  education,  including  health  educa- 
tion, recreation  and  sanitation; 

(e)  Preparation  and  supply  of  competent  teachers 
for  the  public  schools,  higher  education,  and 
in  such  other  fields  as  in  the  judgment  of  the 
Secretary  of  Education  may  require  attention 
and  study.” 

It  is  provided  by  Section  3 that  there  is  to  be  trans- 
ferred to  the  Department  of  Education  the  Bureau  of 
Education  and  such  other  offices,  bureaus,  and  branches 
of  the  government  as  Congress  may  determine,  to  be 
administered  by  the  Department  of  Education. 

HISTORY  OF  THE  PRESENT  BUREAU  OF  EDUCATION 
The  proposals  for  the  establishment  of  a Bureau  of 
Education  date  from  1864.  In  1866  it  was  the  subject 
of  a memorial  presented  to  Congress  by  the  National 


Do  We  Need  a Federal  Department  of  Education  ? 


Association  of  State  and  City  School  Superintendents, 
and  in  1867  an  Act  was  passed  establishing  a National 
Department  of  Education,  with  an  appropriation  of 
$18,676,  and  a staff  of  four  employees.  The  appropria- 
tion bill  of  July  20,  1868,  declared  that  “the  Depart- 
ment of  Education  shall  cease  from  and  after  the  30th 
day  of  June,  1869,”  and  in  its  stead  a Bureau  of  Educa- 
tion was  created  and  attached  to  the  Department  of 
the  Interior.  The  purpose  of  the  bureau  was  stated  to  be : 

“To  collect  (quoting  Section  516)  statistics  and 
facts  showing  the  condition  and  progress  of  educa- 
tion in  the  several  states  and  territories  and  to  dif- 
fuse such  information  respecting  the  organization 
and  management  of  schools  and  school  systems  and 
methods  of  teaching  as  shall  aid  the  people  of  the 
United  States  in  the  establishment  and  maintenance 
of  efficient  school  systems,  and  otherwise  promote 
the  cause  of  education  throughout  the  country.” 
(Act  of  July  20,  1868,  ch.  176,  15  Stat.  L.  92,  106.) 

The  appropriation  by  the  Bureau  has  grown  from  the 
$8,550  provided  in  1870  to  $162,045  in  1921.  Although 
there  is  a tendency  on  the  part  of  the  proponents  of 
Federal  participation  to  belittle  the  work  of  the  Bureau, 
yet  when  the  Bureau  has  possessed  at  its  head  an  edu- 
cational leader  it  has  played  a useful  part  in  the  de- 
velopment of  education,  and  any  review  of  educational 
development  in  the  past  fifty  years  must  give  an  hon- 
orable place  to  Henry  Barnard  and  William  T.  Harris. 

ARGUMENTS  FOR  A DEPARTMENT  OF  EDUCATION 
The  principal  arguments  advanced  for  the  creation 
of  a Department  of  Education  with  a Cabinet  officer  at 
its  head  are: 

First:  That  it  would  give  to  education  due  “rec- 

ognition” of  its  importance  and  dignity  in 
the  life  of  the  nation; 

Second:  That  it  would  furnish  educational  leader- 
ship to  the  nation; 


Do  We  Need  a Federal  Department  of  Education  ? 


Third:  That  it  would  coordinate  and  give  more 

effective  administration  of  the  many  edu- 
cational activities  now  conducted  by  the 
various  departments  of  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment. 

PRESTIGE 

It  is  claimed  that  in  the  United  States  public  educa- 
tion suffers  because  it  lacks  the  prestige  of  being  repre- 
sented in  the  Cabinet,  whereas  the  cabinets  of  most 
nations  contain  a Minister  of  Public  Instruction.  There 
is  hardly  an  analogy  here,  however,  because  the  Federal 
Government  of  the  United  States  is  something  unknown 
among  European  nations  which  are  highly  centralized 
and  where  education  is  administered  by  the  nation. 
The  Minister  of  Education  is  the  administrative  officer 
in  charge  of  the  administration  of  education  throughout 
the  nation.  It  can  hardly  be  seriously  argued,  however, 
that  because  there  is  no  Secretary  of  Education  in  the 
Cabinet  the  people  of  the  United  States  are  more  indiffer- 
ent than  other  nations  to  the  importance  of  education. 
It  is  common  observation  that  there  is  no  country  in 
which  education  has  a more  vital  hold  upon  the  con- 
science and  minds  of  the  people  than  in  the  United  States. 

EDUCATIONAL  LEADERSHIP 

With  reference  to  the  furnishing  of  educational  leader- 
ship, it  seems  that  this  is  more  a question  of  personality 
and  of  creation  of  ideals  than  of  official  position.  The 
great  leaders  in  the  history  of  education  have  perhaps 
occasionally  held  official  positions  but  more  often  not. 

CONSOLIDATION  OF  ALL  EDUCATIONAL  ACTIVITIES  OF 
FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT  NOT  PRACTICABLE 

The  argument  that  a Department  of  Education  should 
be  created  in  order  to  take  over  the  administration  of 
the  various  educational  activities  of  the  government 
now  scattered  throughout  the  Federal  departments  is 
urged  with  considerable  force. 

[97] 


Do  We  Need  a Federal  Department  of  Education? 


The  Sterling-Towner  Bill,  however,  does  not  specifi- 
cally provide  for  the  consolidation  under  the  new  Depart- 
ment of  Education  of  any  of  the  other  educational 
activities  of  the  government,  but  simply  provides  that: 

“There  is  hereby  transferred  to  the  Department 
of  Education  the  Bureau  of  Education  and  such 
offices,  bureaus,  divisions,  boards  or  branches  of  the 
government  connected  with  or  attached  to  any  of 
the  executive  departments  or  organized  independ- 
ently of  any  department,  as  Congress  may  deter- 
mine should  be  administered  by  the  Department 
of  Education.”  (67th  Congress,  1st  Session,  H.  R. 

7,  Section  3.) 

As  a matter  of  fact,  if  the  bill  is  passed  in  its  present 
form  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  any  progress  in  the  so-called 
coordination  of  government  activities  will  be  effected. 
A further  study  of  the  nature  of  these  activities  shows 
that  many  of  them  by  their  very  nature  can  never  come 
under  a Department  of  Education.  The  educational 
activities  of  the  Army  and  Navy,  for  example,  including 
West  Point  and  Annapolis  Academies,  must  be  operated 
and  controlled  by  the  Army  and  Navy  Departments. 
The  Indian  schools  are  so  essentially  a part  of  the  Indian 
administration  that  it  is  impossible  that  they  should  be 
administered  by  a Department  of  Education.  The 
specialized  education  in  connection  with  the  agricultural 
experiment  stations  and  the  various  educational  enter- 
prises now  being  conducted  by  the  Department  of  Agri- 
culture are  also  so  specialized  and  bear  such  close  relation 
to  the  other  administrative  work  of  the  Department  of 
Agriculture  that  there  seems  to  be  no  good  reason  for 
transferring  them  to  a Department  of  Education.  In 
fact.  Senator  Smith  of  Georgia,  one  of  the  proponents  of 
the  proposed  bill  in  the  last  Congress,  stated  at  the 
hearing  before  the  Joint  Committee  in  July,  1919: 

“Senator  Smith:  I think  that  some  of  the  addi- 
tional branches  of  educational  work  might  perhaps 

[98] 


Do  We  Need  a Federal  Department  of  Education? 


be  added  to  the  Department  of  Education.  I doubt 
whether  it  should  invade  the  agricultural  work  be- 
cause it  is  a class  of  work  while  it  is  educational,  yet 
it  is  work  in  agriculture,  and  I think  that  the  farm 
extension  work  through  the  colleges  is  in  splendid 
shape.  I do  not  know  that  it  ought  to  be  transferred. 

It  may  be  later  on  that  the  Department  of  Education 
will  as  it  gets  hold  of  the  work  get  ready  for  it.  We 
thought,  however,  that  it  had  better  grow  and  de- 
velop first.”  (Record  of  Joint  Hearings,  1919,  p.  18.) 

STATUS  OF  THE  BOARD  FOR  VOCATIONAL  EDUCATION 
UNDER  THE  BILL 

There  remains  the  principal  other  educational  activity 
of  the  Federal  Government, — vocational  education  under 
the  Smith-Hughes  Act.  One  of  the  interesting  features 
of  the  bill  is  that  though  this  bill  is  being  pushed  by 
substantially  the  same  people  and  interests  that  were 
behind  the  Smith-Hughes  Act,  yet  the  bill  does  not  pro- 
vide that  this  work  should  be  administered  by  the 
new  Department  of  Education.  The  comment  of  Pro- 
fessor Judd  of  the  University  of  Chicago  on  this  point  is 
illuminating : 

“Many  of  us  have  felt  all  along  that  there  is  at 
least  one  fundamental  objection  to  the  first  part  of 
the  bill.  This  objection  was  presented  to  the  com- 
mission that  formulated  the  bill  and  to  everybody 
who  has  had  charge  of  the  bill.  The  bill  does  not 
say  anything  about  the  Federal  Board  for  Voca- 
tional Education.  It  is  fair  to  record  the  history 
that  explains  why  that  is  so.  When  the  commission 
was  considering  which  branches  of  the  government 
were  to  be  included  in  the  Department  of  Education, 
the  director  of  the  Vocational  Board  appeared  before 
the  commission  and  notified  them  that  if  his  Board 
was  included  in  the  original  draft  of  the  bill  he  would 
oppose  the  bill ; so  the  commission  left  the  board  out. 

“Suppose  that  a new  department  is  created.  One 
of  the  first  matters  that  will  have  to  be  discussed  will 

[99] 


Do  We  Need  a Federal  Department  of  Education? 


be  the  question  of  adopting  the  Federal  Board  for 
Vocational  Education  into  the  new  Department.  So 
far  as  I can  see,  there  are  only  two  answers  to  the 
question  raised: 

“ (1)  Either  the  Federal  Board  is  to  be  allowed  to 
go  on  its  own  independent  way  or  (2)  its  activities 
will  have  to  be  taken  up  by  the  new  department.  If 
the  Vocational  Board  is  not  absorbed  we  shall  have 
a perpetuation  of  one  of  the  most  damaging  policies 
that  Congress  has  ever  adopted.  At  the  behest  of 
commercial  interests  Congress  passed  TFTe  Smith- 
Hughes  law  and  drove  a dividing  wedge  into  our 
unified  American  educational  system.  If  the  Fed- 
eral Government  goes  on  separating  vocational  edu- 
cation from  academic  education  it  will  be  committing 
a grave  offense  against  American  institutional  life; 
for  in  this  country  we  have  and  ought  to  be  allowed 
to  continue  to  develop  a unified,  undivided  educa- 
tional system. 

“For  my  part,  I should  be  glad  to  see  the  Smith- 
Hughes  law  repealed  root  and  branch.”  (Univer- 
sity of  Illinois  Bulletin,  December  26,  1921,  p.  98.) 

It  should  be  noted,  therefore,  that  those  who  argue 
that  the  present  bill  necessarily  means  the  coordination 
of  the  educational  activities  of  the  government  are  labor- 
ing under  an  illusion,  for  the  bill,  as  proposed,  does  not 
provide  for  the  taking  over  of  a single  one  of  the  edu- 
cational activities  of  the  government,  nor  indeed  is  it 
likely  for  the  reasons  just  given  that  if  the  department 
is  set  up  any  of  these  activities  will  be  put  in  its  charge. 

DANGER  OF  FEDERAL  CONTROL 
The  principal  argument,  however,  against  the  creation 
of  the  Department  of  Education  with  an  appropriation 
of  $500,000  is  the  danger  of  establishing  Federal  control 
of  our  educational  system.  We  have  already  discussed 
that  question  at  length  and  need  not  refer  to  it  further 
except  to  note  that  it  is  an  interesting  coincidence  that 
the  very  bill  which  provides  for  the  establishment  of 

[100] 


Do  We  Need  a Federal  Department  of  Education? 


this  Department  also  carries  the  appropriation  of 
$100,000,000  for  Federal  participation  in  education; 
and  as  we  have  already  seen  as  originally  drafted  by  its 
present  sponsors,  it  provided  for  a substantial  degree  of 
administrative  control  over  these  appropriations,  al- 
though an  ineffectual  attempt  has  been  made  to  patch 
up  the  bill  in  this  respect. 

DANGER  OF  PUTTING  EDUCATION  INTO 
NATIONAL  POLITICS 

The  putting  of  a Secretary  of  Education  into  the 
Cabinet  necessarily  means  putting  the  interests  of  educa- 
tion into  national  politics.  This  is  inevitable,  and  as  bear- 
ing upon  this  point  it  is  interesting  to  notice  that  in  the 
fifty-four  years  since  the  Bureau  of  Education  was  estab- 
lished there  have  been  but  six  commissioners,  as  follows: 


Henry  Barnard 1867-1870 

John  Eaton 1870-1886 

Nathaniel  H.  R.  Dawson 1886-1880 

William  T.  Harris 1889-1906 

Elmer  Ellsworth  Brown 1906-1911 

Philander  Priestly  Claxton  ....  1911-1921 

John  James  Tiger t 1921- 


Cabin^t  officers  are  chosen  from  the  party  in  power. 
Under  _a  Democratic  administration  there  will  be  a 
Democratic  Secretary  of  Education,  and  under  a Repub- 
lican administration  the  Secretary  of  Education  must 
be  a Republican.  The  average  tenure  of  office  of  a Cab- 
inet officer  during  the  period  since  1861  has  been  two 
years  and  eight  months.  This  indicates  one  of  the  diffi- 
culties which  will  be  involved  in  seeking  to  increase  the 
prestige  of  education  by  changing  it  from  a bureau  to  a 
department. 

PROPOSED  SOCIAL  WELFARE  DEPARTMENT 
There  is  a serious  question,  also,  whether  it  is  advis- 
able to  add  further  to  the  size  of  the  Cabinet.  The 
President  has  already  proposed  the  creation  of  a new 

[101] 


Do  We  Need  a Federal  Department  of  Education? 


department,  with  a Secretary  in  the  Cabinet,  to  be  known 
as  the  Department  of  Public  Welfare.  In  the  draft  of 
the  bill  presented  by  Senator  Kenyon,  it  is  proposed 
that  there  should  be  a Division  of  Education  under  this 
new  department.  Further  discussion  of  the  proposal, 
we  understand,  is  awaiting  the  report  of  the  Commission 
on  the  Reorganization  of  Government  Activities.  If  it 
is  considered  necessary  to  add  another  member  to  the 
Cabinet,  it  would  seem  on  the  whole  preferable  that  it 
should  be  a Department  of  Public  Welfare  along  the  lines 
recommended  by  the  President,  because  if  a Department 
of  Education  is  created  it  is  likely  that  there  will  be 
further  departments  created  to  represent  other  branches 
of  public  welfare,  representing  public  health,  for  example, 
and  perhaps  eventually  other  social  welfare  activities. 
PRESENT  APPROPRIATION  FOR  BUREAU  OF  EDUCATION 
SHOULD  BE  INCREASED 

Our  review  of  the  proposals  for  Federal  participation 
in  education  and  for  the  creation  of  a Department  of 
Education  has  shown  clearly  the  necessity  for  more 
comprehensive  study  and  a deeper  and  sounder  analysis 
of  the  educational  problems  of  the  nation,  and  one 
devoid  of  propaganda  and  the  sensationalism  which 
mark  the  present  discussion.  We  believe  it  is  desirable 
that  there  be  substantial  increase  in  the  appropriation 
for  the  present  Bureau  of  Education  to  make  it  possible 
for  educational  research  to  be  conducted  on  a larger 
scale  and  for  a greater  degree  of  leadership  to  be  furnished 
to  educational  effort,  especially  in  the  more  backward 
states.  However,  instead  of  increasing  the  appropria- 
tion of  the  bureau  at  one  jump  from  $162,000  to  $500,000 
it  will  undoubtedly  be  more  effective  to'  make  the  in- 
crease gradually,  and  the  increased  appropriation  should 
be  based  upon  definite  proposals  for  the  expenditure  of 
the  money,  which  is  one  of  the  conspicuous  defects  of 
the  proposal  in  the  present  bill  for  the  appropriation 
of  $500,000  for  the  proposed  Department  of  Education. 

[102] 


APPENDIX  A 


U.  S.  ARMY  REPORT  ON  LITERACY  OF 
DRAFTED  MEN 

Transcript  from  National  Academy  of  Sciences 
Memoirs.  Psychological  Examining  in  the 
United  States  Army. 

{Submitted  to  the  Surgeon  General  of  the  Army  as  the  official 
report  of  the  Division  of  Psychology  of  the  Office  of  the  Surgeon 
General , and  published  with  the  approval  of  the  Department 
of  War.)  Chapter  9 , p.  71±3  ff. 

“CHAPTER  9 
Literacy 

“Information  on  illiteracy  in  the  drafted  army  was  obtained 
only  incidentally  as  it  was  indicated  by  the  type  of  examina- 
tion given  recruits.  The  beta  examination  was  developed 
primarily  for  men  who  could  not  read  and  write  English  and 
was  used  for  these  men  in  place  of  the  alpha  examination 
which  presupposes  English  literacy.  The  percentages  of  men 
taking  the  beta  examination  are  available,  but  unfortunately 
the  method  of  segregation  for  beta  in  different  camps  and  at 
different  times  differed  greatly,  so  that  no  positive  definition 
of  illiteracy  can  be  laid  down  on  this  basis.*  Without  a defini- 
tion, statistics  of  illiteracy  are  meaningless,  for  men  vary  by 
all  degrees  from  inability  to  sign  their  names  or  to  read  even 
digits  up  to  degree  of  ability  that  would  be  classed  as  literate 
by  any  one.  In  general  it  may  be  said  that  many  of  the  camps 
aimed  at  an  ‘ability  to  read  and  understand  newspapers  and 
write  letters  home  ’ as  a basis  for  the  alpha  examination,  and 
that  the  figures  for  the  numbers  of  men  taking  beta  do  approxi- 
mately reflect  this  level  of  literacy.  Unfortunately,  however, 
the  degree  of  adequacy  with  which  the  intended  separation 

* “ See  section  on  camp  organization  in  Part  I,  chapter  3,  section  6 (pages 
62  to  87),  and  the  chapter  on  methods  of  segregation.  Part  II,  chapter  5, 
especially  section  1 (pages  347  to  355). 

[103] 


Appendix  A 


was  made  depended  on  chance  conditions,  such  as  the  skill  of 
a sergeant  who  separated  the  men,  the  presence  of  an  inter- 
preter, the  immediate  availability  of  space  in  the  beta  exam- 
ination room.  Camp  conditions  were  rough  and  examining 
procedure  was  constantly  being  adapted  to  meet  the  ever- 
present emergency.  The  figures  for  men  taking  beta,  given  in 
this  chapter,  are  rather  the  figures  for  the  ‘less  literate’  in 
the  drafted  army  than  for  the  illiterate  in  any  strictly  defined 
sense  of  the  term.* 

“Notwithstanding  these  limitations  the  extent  of  illiteracy 
among  the  drafted  men  is  a striking  fact.  The  figures  for  beta 
are  not  an  exact  measure  of  this  fact,  and  it  is  equally  obvious 
that  without  a more  definite  measure  of  literacy  and  a uniform 
standard  for  the  segregation  of  groups  detailed  statements 
are  impossible.  Nevertheless,  these  measures,  though  rough 
and  varied,  do  indicate  conditions  of  serious  public  concern. 

“The  weekly  statistical  reports  to  the  Surgeon  General’s 
Office  from  the  camps  give  the  numbers  of  men  taking  the 
beta  examination.  The  usual  basis  of  separation  for  beta  was 
‘ability  to  read  and  understand  newspapers  and  write  letters 
home.’  In  a number  of  camps,  however,  an  educational  quali- 
fication (four,  five  or  six  years’  schooling)  was  added,  and  in 
a few  camps  an  educational  qualification  alone  was  used. 
Table  279  indicates,  for  28  stations  in  which  extensive  exam- 
ination was  carried  out,  both  the  basis  on  which  a man  was 
considered  literate,  and  the  number  and  per  cent  of  all  men 
examined  whom  it  was  found  necessary  to  send  to  the  beta 
examination  for  illiterates.” 

* “Very  roughly  the  figures  for  beta  correspond  to  a literacy  of  the  fifth 
grade  or  less  although  the  variation  about  this  point  is  great.  It  is  that  to 
call  fifth  or  fourth  grade  literacy  ‘illiteracy’  is  to  use  the  term  ‘illiteracy’  in 
a very  different  sense  from  the  usual  usage.  The  United  States  Bureau  of 
the  Census  classifies  as  illiterate  any  one  10  years  of  age  or  over  reporting 
himself  as  unable  to  write.  (See  Abstract  of  the  Thirteenth  Census  of  the 
United  States,  Washington,  1913,  p.  239.)  This  classification  is  quite  as  indef- 
inite as  the  segregational  division  in  the  psychological  service,  but  it  repre- 
sents presumably  a much  lower  degree  of  literate  ability.  The  extent  of  illit- 
eracy is  often  largely  dependent  on  the  proportion  of  negroes  in  the  group; 
this  is  therefore  indicated  in  the  final  column.  The  figures  cover  the  period 
from  April  27,  1918,  to  the  close  of  examining.” 


[ 104  ] 


TABLE  279 


Number  of  Men  Given  Examination  Beta,  as 
Bearing  Upon  the  Literacy  of  Recruits 


Station 

Literacy  Basis  * 

Number 

Examined 

Number 
Sent  to 
Beta 

Per 

Cent 

Beta 

Per 

Cent 

Negro 

Bowie  . . . 

Read  and  write,  finished  4th 
grade  

27,464 

5,497 

20.0 

10.7 

Cody  . . . 

Fourth  grade 

43,482 

5,003 

18.8 

0. 

Custer  . . 

Read  and  write;  negroes,  5 
years  at  school 

54,354 

10,004 

18.4 

9.9 

D evens  . . 

50,031 

11,370 

22.7 

1.7 

Dix  .... 

Read  and  write 

67,768 

19,768 

29.2 

19.8 

Dodge  . . 

Read  easily,  6th  grade  . . . 

69,927 

22,701 

32.5 

25.4 

Funston  . . 

Read  and  write,  finished  4th 
grade 

75,678 

21,967 

29.0 

25.5 

Gordon  . . 

Read  and  write 

63,648 

16,119 

25.3 

10.8 

Grant  . . . 

Read  and  write  rapidly,  or 
7th  grade 

83,229 

24,218 

29.1 

18.8 

Greene  . . 

Read  and  write,  4 years  at 
school 

27,807 

10,512 

37.8 

38.6 

Greenleaf  . 

Read  and  write,  4th  grade, 
and  5 years  U.  S 

56,097 

9,992 

17.8 

0.8 

Hancock 

Read  and  write  fairly,  reached 
6th  grade 

44,433 

12,714 

28.6 

5.1 

Humphreys 



13,981 

1,957 

14.0 

0. 

Jackson  . . 

Read  and  write 

98,996 

19,587 

19.8 

17.5 

Kearney 

Read  and  write,  speak  Eng- 
lish and  over  5th  grade  . 

18,921 

2,931 

15.5 

.005 

Lee  .... 

82,441 

23,104 

28.0 

8.8 

Lewis  . . . 

Read  and  write 

75,519 

10,209 

13.5 

2.2 

Logan  . . 

Read  and  write 

19,984 

3,769 

18.4 

0.3 

Meade  . . 

Reached  5 th  grade  .... 

65,700 

21,089 

32.1 

20.8 

Pike  . . . 

Read  and  write 

75,942 

21,981 

28.8 

16.1 

Sevier  . . 

4 years  at  school  (later  6 
years  at  school) 

24,139 

6,567 

27.2 

18.7 

Sheridan 

Read  and  write  (later  6 years 
at  school) 

55,165 

11,985 

21.7 

10.0 

Sherman 

6th  grade;  negroes,  8 years 
at  school 

64,408 

26,938 

41.8 

30.4 

Taylor  . . 

Read  and  write;  negroes, 
finished  6th  grade  . . . 

53,336 

10,672 

20.0 

16.9 

Travis  . . 

Read  and  write 

77,555 

17,403 

22.4 

22.0 

Upton  . . 

Read  newspapers 

61,559 

14,486 

23.5 

15.4 

Wadsworth 

Northern  recruits,  3d  grade; 
Southern  recruits, 4th  grade 

67,704 

13,442 

19.9 

6.0 

Wheeler  . . 

Read  and  write,  reached  6th 
grade  (later  7th  grade)  . . 

32,988 

10,411 

31.6 

10.9 

Total 

1,552,256 

386,196 

24.9 

14.2 

* “ Read  and  write  ” means  “ ability  to  read  and  understand  newspapers  and  write  letters 
home.” 


[105] 


APPENDIX  B 

Number  of  Immigrants  Admitted  Unable  to  Read 


Write  in 

Any  Language 

1896  . . 

. . 78,130 

1897  . . 

. . 43,008 

1898  . . 

. . 43,057 

1899  . . 

. . 60,446 

1900  . . 

. . 93,576 

1901  . . 

. . 117,587 

1902  . . 

. . 162,188 

1903  . . 

. . 185,667 

1904  . . 

. . 168,903 

1905  . . 

. . 230,882 

1906  . . 

. . 265,068 

1907  . . 

. . 337,573 

1908  . . 

. . 172,293 

1909  . . 

. . 191,049 

1910  . . 

. . 253,569 

1911  . . 

. . 182,273 

1912  . . 

. . 177,284 

1913  . . 

. . 269,988 

1914  . . 

. . 260,152 

1915  . . 

. . 35,057 

1916  . . 

. . 40,138 

1917  . . 

. . 35,215 

1918  . . 

. . 3,512 

1919  . . 

. . 2,827 

1920  . . 

. . 11,395 

1921  . . 

. . 27,463 

Total  . 

. 3,448,300 

( Statistical  Abstract  of  the  United  States,  1920,  p.  92.) 


[106] 


APPENDIX  C 

Growth  of  Mexican  Immigration 

Bearing  upon  the  foreign-born  illiteracy  problem  in  some 
of  the  southwestern  states,  it  is  interesting  to  note  the  extent 
to  which  immigration  from  Mexico  has  increased  in  the  past 
fifteen  years.  The  statistics  are  as  follows : 

IMMIGRATION  FROM  MEXICO 


1907 

. . . . 1,406 

1908 

. . . . 6,067 

1909 

. . . 16,251 

1910 

. . . . 18,691 

1911 

. . . . 19,889 

1912 

. . . . 23,238 

1913 

. . , . 11,926 

1914 

. 14,614 

1915 

. . . 12,340 

1916 

. . . 18,425 

1917 

. . . 17,869 

1918 

. . . 18,524 

1919 

. . . 29,818 

1920 

. . 52,361 

1921 

. . . . 30,758 

Total  . . 292,177 

{Annual  Reports  of  Commissioner  of  General  Immigration.) 


[107] 


APPENDIX  D 

Number  of  Aliens  Admissible  from  Countries  of 
Southern  and  Eastern  Europe  and  Western 
Asia  Under  Immigration  Act  of  May  19,  1921 

Quota  Fiscal 

Country  of  Place  of  Birth  Year  1922 

Albania 287 

Austria 7,444 

Bulgaria 301 

Czechoslovakia 14,269 

Danzig 285 

Finland  3,890 

Fiume 71 

Greece 3,286 

Hungary 5,635 

Italy 42,021 

Jugoslavia 6,405 

Poland 20,019 

Eastern  Galicia 5,781 

Portugal  (including  Azores  and  Madeira  Islands)  . 2,269 

Rumania 7,414 

Russia  (including  Siberia) 34,247 

Spain  663 

Armenia 1,588 

Palestine 56 

Smyrna  District 438 

Syria 905 

Turkey  (Europe  and  Asia) 215 


157,489 

( Report  of  Commissioner  General  of  Immigration , 1921 , p.  18.) 


[108] 


APPENDIX  E 

Statistics  of  Immigration  and  Emigration  for 
Countries  of  Southern  and  Eastern  Europe  — 


July  1,  1921,  to  June  30, 

1922 

Immigrants 

Emigrants 

Austria 

5,019 

579 

Hungary  

5,756 

4,307 

Bulgaria 

297 

660 

Czechoslovakia 

12,541 

7,846 

Finland 

2,767 

1,179 

Greece 

3,457 

7,506 

Italy 

40,319 

53,651 

Poland 

28,635 

33,581 

Portugal 

1,950 

5,877 

Rumania 

10,287 

3,795 

Russia  

17,143 

6,407 

Spain 

665 

6,793 

Turkey  in  Europe  

1,660 

201 

Yugoslavia 

6,047 

9,733 

136,543  142,115 

(U.  S.  Bureau  of  Immigration , Bulletin  438.) 


[109] 


APPENDIX  F 


Average  Annual  Salaries  of  All  Elementary 
and  Secondary  Teachers,  1917-1918 


Annual 

Annual 

State 

Salaries 

State 

Salaries 

District  of  Columbia 

$1,052 

North  Dakota  . . 

$578 

California  . . . 

1,012 

Oklahoma  . . . 

571 

New  York  . . 

976 

Nebraska  .... 

562 

Arizona  .... 

952 

Delaware  .... 

561 

Washington  . . 

922 

New  Hampshire  . 

548 

New  Jersey  . . 

911 

Wisconsin  .... 

521 

Nevada  .... 

874 

Kansas 

513 

Massachusetts  . 

858 

South  Dakota  . . 

504 

Rhode  Island  . 

802 

New  Mexico  . . 

500 

Illinois  .... 

778 

Texas 

487 

Utah 

754 

Louisiana  .... 

471 

Colorado  . . . 

749 

Vermont  .... 

467 

Connecticut  . . 

745 

Maine 

443 

Ohio 

744 

West  Virginia  . . 

408 

Oregon  .... 

702 

Arkansas  .... 

387 

Pennsylvania  . 

702 

Virginia  .... 

385 

Maryland  . . . 

687 

Florida  ..... 

383 

Idaho  .... 

685 

Tennessee  .... 

370 

Montana  . . . 

670 

Georgia 

366 

Michigan  . . . 

663 

Kentucky  .... 

364 

Minnesota  . . 

651 

Alabama  .... 

345 

Missouri  . . . 

651 

South  Carolina  . 

315 

Indiana  .... 

587 

Mississippi  . . . 

291 

Wyoming  . . . 

578 

North  Carolina  . 

284 

Iowa 

578 

Average  for  whole  U.  S.  $635 
(U.  S.  Bureau  of  Education,  1920 , Bulletin  11,  p.  £2.) 


[110] 


UNIVERSfTY  OF  ILLINOIS-URBANA 


12  105033 


879 


